Introducing the new ‘Feature Article’ on Blogging Theology

Dear readers and contributors to Blogging Theology.

A concerned reader and contributor has expressed exasperation at the “Insults, vulgarity and cheap shots that litter the comment sections. The overall tone of the blog has become absurdly polemical, and frankly bitter” (see here).

I am grateful to Chris De Ray for waking me up to this problem and the need to take appropriate remedial action.

I propose that those good quality articles which aim to stimulate respectful dialogue and debate (such as those by Eric and Chris) be clearly designated as a Feature Article in the title.

This will permit those who want to continue the rough and tumble of polemics to have their say in other articles whilst applying strict standards of conduct in the special Feature Article posts.

In those articles intended for serious theological discussion all participants will be deemed to agree in advance to be respectful. A zero-tolerance policy on insults, purposeful irrelevance and trolling will result in such comments being deleted, the person warned and then blocked if they repeat this behaviour.

I am confident this solution will encourage new readers and contributors to participate on this blog.

kind regards

Paul Williams



Categories: Blogging Theology, Feature Article

Tags: ,

149 replies

  1. Once again Paul, many thanks for taking this seriously. This strikes me as an excellent solution.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Dear Mr Williams

    Bravo, bravo and bravo again. We may have different theologies but we must behave like civilised people when discussing them. If not we would, as St Paul said, be like a “ringing gong or a clashing cymbal”

    God and St Mary be with you

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Good Paul,

    But how come you let Faiz (quranandbibleblog) constantly throw out insults and ad hominem, etc. ?

    I don’t agree with Shamoun’s anger and doing that; and I have rebuked him for that (and still do, when he does that), but you don’t rebuke Faiz for the same kind of stuff against me.

    Like

    • Kenny, don’t lie. You only rebuked Shamoun after I and others pointed out your hypocrisy. For a while, you had formed an alliance with him and both of you were busy demonizing Islam and Muslims. At other times, you just stayed quiet while he launched his tirades. You have exposed yourself as a hypocrite and when you get called out for your hypocrisy, you whine and pretend like you are being victimized. Pathetic…

      Liked by 2 people

      • You don’t know what you are talking about. I rebuked Sam Shamoun many years ago first by private email and he would not listen to me. I told him many times that if he would just stick to content, arguments, principles, quoting the texts of the Bible, Qur’an, Hadith, and sources, and do reason and cut out all the ad hominem stuff, he would do better. I told him many times he was a bad witness by his behavior.

        I was surprised that Paul W. let him write and also “stayed quiet” a lot, when he did his bombast and insults; just as he does with you and your bad methods.

        I don’t demonize Islam or Muslims. Sincerely believing that the Jihads vs. Byzantine and Persia were wrong and unjust is not “demonizing” and believing the Qur’an is man-made or Muhammad is not a true prophet, is not “demonizing”. It is a matter of sincerely held religious beliefs that if Christianity is true, then logically, Islam is false. The Qur’an makes historical errors (4:157) and did not know what Christians believed for 600 years (6:101; 5:116; 19:88-92), so it could not be revelation from the true living God.

        Like

      • You’re a liar Ken, and you know it. You had formed an alliance with Shamoun, albeit a short one. You were sucking up to him, probably to avoid becoming a target once again. The fact that you did this despite sending him an email long ago just goes to show what a hypocrite you are. Not only that, but you uncritically copy and paste his bad arguments as well.

        Like

      • You still don’t know what you are talking about. You are the one who is lying about me and judging without knowing nor understanding me.

        Like

      • But that’s what you do about Muslims and Islam all the time.

        Like

      • I understand you feel that way because I don’t think Islam is true; since I am convinced that Christianity and the Bible, both OT and NT are true and the final revelation.

        But I sincerely love Muslims as people and have spent lots of time with them over the years. I never did debates; I actually spent time with them, eating their foods, drinking coffee with them, tea, kebabs, etc. and learning one of their languages well and some elementary basics of another language.

        Like

      • when did I do that? Keep in mind there is a difference between the doctrines of Islam and it’s history; and a Muslim as a person.

        Like

      • Kenny, this is why no one takes you seriously. You are lying through your teeth right now. You and Shamoun had a brief love affair, and you know it. This happened just a couple of months ago.

        Like

  4. Good solution, yes we need to explain rule of the game clearly before employing censorship, I’d love to see comments mocking our beloved Prophet (pbuh) strictly prohibited, and also irrelevant and preachy comment also prevented.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. This is a great idea, Paul! I think this will represent a fresh move forward for the blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. @ Ken

    Going to pop in and say are those your only contentions about Islam and if they are if they’re answered in a manner that satisfies you, would you become a Muslim?

    Like

    • You cannot, because Islam is an anachronistic religion, seeking after 600 years of pure truth and love and light (Christ and the NT revelation) to go back and say that all the texts are wrong and then centuries later use liberal – skeptics – agnostic theories of redaction criticism to try and say it is the truth.

      Islam, at the core, is against everything dear to Christianity. Denying the Bible, the substitutionary atonement, the incarnation of Christ, the Deity of Christ, the Fatherhood of God, the eternal Sonship of Jesus, the Trinity, man’s bondage to sin in his thoughts and motives, the way of salvation (grace through faith, not by works);

      – Islam denies the heart of God’s revelation to us and His love. “God is love” points to the Fatherhood of God and the willingness of the Son to come and be incarnated and be the atonement, and the application of Salvation into our hearts – by the Holy Spirit who causes regeneration, and sanctification (holiness) and guidance for the church through the word, etc. – ie, the Trinity.

      Islam is basically force (جبر Jabr, الجبار – Allah is Al-Jabbar, (the one who forces, the enforcer, etc.) exemplified in history in the applications of Sharia law of
      the force of government and aggressive warfare (unjust attacking and conquering of areas – Byzantine and Persia and later Hiindu and Buddhist areas, etc.).

      No; I have never seen any good arguments and I started reaching out to Muslims in the USA and studying the Qur’an and Islam in 1983, long before Shamoun or White or David Wood started debating Muslims and writing about it.

      Like

      • @ Ken

        Yes, yes everybody says that. BUT (hypothetically of course) IF I answered your above points in a manner that is satisfying to you would you become a Muslim?

        Like

      • Yes, but it is impossible, because it would require a denial of the true God, the God of the Bible, the Holy Trinity; the God of love.

        You cannot satisfy the human heart by man-made arguments nor by human ingenuity.

        Conversion in Christianity is a miracle; the giving of new life to dead rebel sinners who are blind. You can reverse or satisfy that, when the heart has already been satisfied with the true Christ, the true Al Masih. المسیح

        Like

      • //Islam is basically force (جبر Jabr, الجبار – Allah is Al-Jabbar, (the one who forces, the enforcer, etc.) //
        This is just ignorance from your part, Ken. You have been refuted about this very point. Not sure why you repeat your lie about it. Are you happy making fool of yourself or what? I really do not understand?
        It reminds me of the ignorance of James White about the name التواب

        Like

      • Does not Jabr mean basically, “force”?
        and
        an Al Jabbar is frequently defined as “tyrant”, “dictator” in Arabic dictionaries and also in common speech. many of my Arab friends called Saddam Hussein, Hafez Al Assad, “Jabbar”.

        Like

      • Doesn’t God fulfill his decrees even if human beings don’t want that? If God decided about you to be a loser, who can help you? If God decided about you to be a victorious one, who can defeat you? It’s related to the (Power) of Allah.
        Also, جبر means to repair/ heal, it is related to the mercy of God when He heals your fragile status (i.e. when you are vulnerable). He helps the broken-hearted by removing that which causes their grief. In Arabic we say “Allah (yajbur) musabk”, which means may Allah help and strengthen you over your pain or grief.
        And finally, it’s related to sublime greatness of God because Arabs use the root J- B- R for the meaning of height.

        Yes, it’s true that this word can be used for describing tyrants on earth negatively. However, when we speak about God, it means the positive meanings only which fit God’s perfection. The exact same thing you can find in the Hebrew bible for the name ( El Gibbor) which is a name for God , yet it’s used for describing tyrants in the bible.

        In the matter of God’s names , I think both christians and jews need Islam to expand their knowledge about them. Arabic language is remarkably rich.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I also realize it means “Al mighty”, “powerful one”, “irresistable one”,

        Al-Jabr also means “Algebra” – a mathematic formula that if you plug in the right numbers, you always get the same results.

        It is also used in the context of repairing bones, filling in the missing piece.

        Allah and Islam are like mathematic formulas: “obey God as a slave and you will find blessing, Insha’allah. (If God wills)

        Like

      • The promise of Allah is guaranteed in Islam. We are the slaves/servants of Allahعز وجل. This is not “as”! It’s the fact whether you like it or not. It’s the most honorable thing to consider yourself the slave of Allah عز وجلand live as such because it fits you, fits your nature, and fits the reality. Once you deviate form this reality, you are automatically a slave of one else (i.e. a slave for your idol, your money, your sins, and satan)
        When God decided to take the daughter of your friend, God didn’t wait for your decision! God literally owns us! He owns his creations!

        Allah عز وجلis the Only One who can do whatever He wants. Jesus can do nothing by his own! It’s God’s will not Jesus’ will! , so «return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped. And follow the best of what was revealed to you from your Lord before the punishment comes upon you suddenly while you do not perceive.» QT.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. You can NOT reverse or satisfy that, when the heart has already been satisfied with the true Christ, the true Al Masih. المسیح

    Like

    • @ Ken

      I got all that. People say that all the time. My question was in a “magical” world where all these objections are answered and YOU Ken are personally satisfied with the answers would you become a Muslim?

      Like

    • @ Ken

      Hot dang! We got us an agreement. So the following simply needs to be answered:

      1. The wars of Byzantine and Persia not being wrong or unjust
      2. The Qur’an did not make historical errors (4:157) and knew what Christians believed for 600 years (6:101; 5:116; 19:88-92)
      3. Muhammad (saw) is a true prophet.

      Alrighty, Ken pretty simple objections. Ohh this is so exciting.

      Liked by 1 person

      • But more: you cannot refute these doctrines either; and no Muslim apologist or debater ever has.

        1. You cannot refute the Incarnation. John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 2:14-18
        2. Deity of Christ.
        3. Atonement of Christ and sacrifice and all the background of temple and tabernacle sacrifices of the OT and the preview of it in Genesis 22, etc.
        4. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
        5. Man is dead to God in sin and thoughts and motives; and is guilty. The nature of sin.
        6. The Trinity
        7. The Scriptures are preserved.
        8. Fatherhood of God
        9. Love of God – The Trinity

        Like

    • ‘””But more: you cannot refute these doctrines either; and no Muslim apologist or debater ever has.

      1. You cannot refute the Incarnation. John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 2:14-18
      2. Deity of Christ.
      3. Atonement of Christ and sacrifice and all the background of temple and tabernacle sacrifices of the OT and the preview of it in Genesis 22, etc.
      4. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
      5. Man is dead to God in sin and thoughts and motives; and is guilty. The nature of sin.
      6. The Trinity
      7. The Scriptures are preserved.
      8. Fatherhood of God
      9. Love of God – The Trinity”””

      1&2: John 5:30
      “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” Is that what or who Jesus the god of the universe is is? Someone that can do nothing by himself.
      Doesn’t know the hour.
      Denies being good and ascribes it only to the Father.
      etc etc

      3: Fails bigtime since in the end times the Messiah himself will offer a sacrifice for sin including his own (see end of Ezekiel).
      The Jew asking Jesus what he must do to earn salvation and Jesus answers by saying keep the commandmants which proves they werent done away with and no sacrifice of Jesus was required.

      4. Wrong since the book of James explicitly says that faith without works is DEAD.
      James 2:14-26 says
      What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
      18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
      25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
      26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

      5. He can be forgiven through repentance just like the jews in the OT. They didn’t need to believe in Jesus his sacrifice and were saved non the less.

      6. The trinity was NEVER taught by Jesus cus if he wanted people to believe in it he would have mentioned it explicitly since it’s one of the most important doctrines.
      Jesus says explicitly that the Father is the ONLY true God John 17:3. This is impossible if the trinity is true cus you cannot have one ‘person’ of the godhead saying about another person of the godhead that he (one person) is the ONLY true God. If one person is the only true God then the others can’t be. You can play as much verbal gymnastics with this as you wish. It won’t help.
      Furthermore Jesus denied being God in Mark and denied knowing the Hour. All dominion is said to be given to the Son, how can he be given dominion if he is the Al-Mighty? These are just a few points of many.

      7. ????????? I’ll just pretend that was a joke and move on.

      8. Father-son/daugther relation is one that is only between creation. The reason for this is that it is unjust to ascribe Fathership to the Al-Mighty since it doesn’t suit His Majesty. God-human relation is a Master-slave relation. A father has authority over his children, not superiority while a Master has both authority and superiority over His slaves. In fact God has a right over everything that we posses. Hence to call Him a father is blasphamous.

      9. Not sure what you mean by that but there is absolutly ZERO equevalence between the self contradicting triune nature and the attribute Love.

      You can become a Muslim now. Welcome to Islam brother Ken.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ Atlas

        Patience young grasshopper patientience. All he’s now going to do is use ambiguous verses from John. Always remember ALL deviants use ambiguity to support their position. You have to establish a methodology of interpretation first as Christians do not know how to do this.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Atlas,
        Have you read any articles that explain Christian answers to the way you are understanding John 5:30?
        or Mark 13:32?

        Jesus did not deny being good; He only asks, “Why do you call Me good?”
        I and others have already answered that many times over the years.

        “Only God is good” is not the same as “Only the Father is good”.

        It is subtle . . . read the whole passage and think. Notice one of Paul Williams’ favorite scholars agrees with me on this point.

        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/one-of-a-muslims-favorite-scholars-refutes-islamic-mis-use-of-mark-1018/

        Like

      • Except he DID deny being good and you know it Ken.
        It makes zero sense for him to answer the jew with “why do you call me good?” when he is good.
        If someone called me X/Y/Z and I answered with why do you call me X/Y/Z? There is no one good but … alone.
        Everyone will know what I said. Everyone knows that I deny being X/Y/Z.
        The alleyways you have to go down in order to stretch, mutilate, manhandel and carve up what it says is just absolutly astonishing and mindblowing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, Jesus did NOT deny being good; rather He asked, “why do you call me good? Only God is good.” Meaning, since you recognize Me as truly good; and only God is good; then I am God (by nature/substance/essence). John 10:9-11 “I am the good Shepherd” – claiming to be the good shepherd of Psalm 23:1 – the Lord (Yahweh) is my shepherd . . .

        Like

      • “Meaning, since you recognize Me as truly good; and only God is good; then I am God”
        Omg…
        Sigh.
        You’re hopeless.

        Like

      • Fails bigtime since in the end times the Messiah himself will offer a sacrifice for sin including his own (see end of Ezekiel).

        where exactly does Ezekiel say that the Messiah himself will offer a sacrifice for sin including his own ?

        Like

      • Ezekiel 45:22
        On that day the prince is to provide a bull as a sin offering for HIMSELF and for all the people of the land.

        Like

      • In this context, “prince” נשיא (Nasi’a) is the high priest, leader of the priests.

        It is not the Messiah, as Paul Williams has said many times, “where is the word Messiah in this passage?” It is nowhere.

        Also, it describes what the high priest does. (Hebrews 9:7, referring to Leviticus 16:6ff) (also Christ’s sacrifice is further described and contrasted with the OT priests in Hebrews 9:1-28 and 10:1-18.

        The Messiah משיח, prince in Daniel 9:25 is a different Hebrew word for prince (נגיד) Nagid, than the Ezekiel word for prince (נשיא) Nasi’a.

        Like

      • Let’s say your interpretation is right (even though higly respected scholars disagree with you), it doesn’t change the fact that there will be sin sacrifices and hence Jesus can’t be the last or perfects sacrifice. Still lose.
        Sorry Kenny.

        All points that I adressed you couldn’t even refute ONE.
        Damn.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t believe Ezekiel 40-48 is about a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem with atonement sacrifices. (Dispensationalists Pre-Millennials do) Hebrews and the NT teach that Christ is the final sacrifice. 70 AD demonstrates that God allowed the Romans to destroy the temple, thus proving the Jews who rejected Messiah and His sacrifice were wrong.

        The Gospel of John and the book of Revelation use, quote and allude to the book of Ezekiel so much, that is shows the fulfillment in Christ and the Church (I will dwell with them, from Ezekiel 37:28-28, quoted and fulfilled in 2 Corinthians 6:16 ff) and the eternal state. (after judgment day – the fruit for the healing of the nations and the water flowing is about the new heavens and new earth. – Rev. chapters 21-22)

        John chapter 1 and 2 shows Jesus is the glory of God (John 1:14-18) returned (that Ezekiel refers to the glory of God returning) and that His body is the temple. (John 2:19-22)

        So, Christ is the true final sacrifice; and Christ is the true final temple; and the church spreading out into all the nations, not just Israel, is the fulfillment of God dwelling with His people, reaching it’s final climax in Revelation 5:9; 7:9-14 and chapters 21 & 22 in the eternal state after judgement day in Rev. 20:10-15.

        Like

      • I should clarify somewhat – I don’t think Ezekiel 40-48 is about a rebuilt temple FUTURE to us.

        If you notice throughout the book of Ezekiel, he says he has “visions of God”. Ezekiel was written and took place during the Babylonian captivity around 593 BC to about sometime later after the destruction of the temple in 586 BC by Nebuchadnezzar – up until 571 BC. It is about the glory of God leaving the temple because of the sins of Israel and the vision and hope of the future of re-building the temple. The temple was rebuilt in Ezra-Nehemiah’s return AND it was expanded upon and enhanced under the Jewish leadership and Herod the Great for 40 years. (the 2nd temple) John 2:19-22

        John 2:19-22 shows us, along with John 1:14, that John understands the coming of Christ as the glory of God returning to the temple, and that the true temple is Jesus’ body. The constant allusions to water flowing and God providing water, and the Holy Spirit are allusions back to Ezekiel – that God is fulfilling Ezekiel’s vision in Christ, the true Messiah, and His final atonement, the church, etc.

        The Christians who hold to a literal understanding of Ezekiel think that 1948 and Israel being re-established as a nation, are pre-events that will eventually lead to another 3rd rebuilt temple being rebuilt on the temple mount where the Al Aqsa Mosque is and where the Dome of the Rock is. So far, I don’t see any evidence that 1948 is a fulfillment of prophesy, but many conservative Christians do think that. (Christian Zionism is one aspect of that movement; but not all Bible believing Christians are convinced of that scenario.

        I believe the book of Hebrews and the rest of the NT demonstrates that Christ and the Church and the eternal state will fulfill the final culmination of what God is communicating in Ezekiel 40-48.
        (also 37:27 shows the church fulfills that – 2 Cor. 6:16)

        Like

      • Ezra-Nehemiah and close of OT. 539-430 BC. Herod expands the temple later around the time of Christ’s birth, for 40 years.
        70 AD destruction of the temple. (Matthew 24:1-3; see context of chapter 23 and 23:36 ff – God’s judgement on that generation of the Jewish leadership and other Jews who rejected the Messiah Jesus.
        But all the true believers, the first Christians, were Jews – Peter, John, James, Paul, Matthew, Jude, Mark, the other disciples, etc. and they wrote the NT along with Luke, a Greco-Roman Gentile.

        Like

      • Atlas,
        Have you read a scholarly article on how a Protestant understands James 2:14-26?

        We are justified by faith alone, but true faith does not stay alone; it always results in good works, fruit, character change, growth, deeper levels of repentance and growing hunger for God and His word and in prayer and love for people.

        James 2:14-26 is talking about the evidence of faith; not conditions before one enters into relationship with God. It is saying that people can claim to have faith, but true faith has to also have the evidence of good works and good behavior.

        Like

      • Stop with your twisting. It says EXPLICITLY:
        But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

        And
        Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

        And
        You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

        And
        For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

        And
        Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

        And
        Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

        And
        What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

        It says clearly that faith ALONE is NOT the way to salvation.
        For God’s sake, if i wrote a book/forgery I couldn’t have found a better way to express it then the one that wrote James. Such explicit to the point statements that completly destroy the lie about faith alone saving someone when it clearly says that faith alone does NOT save you.
        You want to lie to yourself and die like that, go right ahead. Don’t come whining on the day of judgement when you get confronted with reality. I’d like to see you twist, stretch and reach when you’re answering the One Who created you from nothing.

        Liked by 3 people

      • stop with your twisting

        Like

      • Lol.

        Is that it? That’s your ‘respons’?
        After you mutilated the text and got busted, this is what you have to say?
        Classic!
        If one can’t refute, accuse the other side of mistakes that you yourself make.

        Try again Ken.

        Like

      • You obviously have not researched much on how a scholarly Protestant handles that passage (James 2:14-26); (a believing one, not the liberal stuff that Williams promotes) – I just don’t have time to answer you further right now; but maybe, Inshallah, Lord willing, later.

        Like

  8. Okay, that’s all Ken it takes to bring you to monotheism Ken? Oh, I am super excited. Alright, I got to finish a few more articles and then it’s me and you Ken.

    Like

    • Christianity is true Monotheism.

      Trinitarian doctrine is Monotheism.

      There is only One God; the God of the Bible.

      Like

      • @ Ken

        No its not. Its extreme veneration for another human and is a way Satan tricks others into idolatry.

        People think he always come with big things bit his first goal is to others to do idolatry because its the one sin God will not forgive on the Day of Judgement.

        Also, before we begin we have to establish a methodology of interpretation because I noticed Christians have a tendency to go by what they “feel” is right. So I propose clear cut verses are used to interpret ambiguous ones. And all verses have to reconcile do you agree to this methodology?

        Liked by 4 people

      • Actually, it is; because the Monotheism is One God by nature, essence, substance – there is only one God. Mark 12:29; 1 Timothy 2:5; Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6

        Also, the eternal One God always existed into eternity past as three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; John 17:5; John 1:1-5; 14; Philippians 2:5-8; Acts 5:3-5; Genesis 1:1-3)

        Like

      • Christians have always used that principle of the unclear must be interpreted in light of the clear. That does not deny the three persons of the Trinity nor the Deity of Christ, etc. It shows that the Oneness of God is about the one nature/substance/being/essence and the three persons within the One God are about relations and spiritual relationships of love from eternity past. (not physical)

        Like

    • @Stewjo004

      How is John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and 17:5 and John 20:28 ambiguous?

      They are very clear.

      Philippians 2:5-8 also.

      Matthew 14:33 also – “they worshipped Him, saying, “You are truly the Son of God”

      Like

      • @ Ken

        Ken. I have a majority Christian family and know how they interpret things. All when you say three persons you are no longer monotheistic no matter what way you want to spin it.

        Anyways so you agree that clear verses are used to interpret ambiguous ones. The first topic will be the Trinity (3 persons in the “Godhead” are co-equal and co-eternal)

        My contention is it’s nonexistent in the Bible when one uses clear verses and that the most the Bible teaches is Jesus is a pre-existent semi-divine being that is subordinate to God but is NOT equal to the Father.

        So do you want to do this here or do you want to wait?

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ Ken

        My apologies, I meant to say each author of the gospels has different beliefs. John’s authors (who let’s just admit it is your best evidence) did not believe in the Trinity.

        Like

  9. May Allah help us all
    «Our Lord, upon You we have relied, and to You we have returned, and to You is the destination. Our Lord, do not make us a target for those who disbelieve, and forgive us, our Lord. You are indeed the Mighty and Wise» QT

    Liked by 1 person

  10. ‘””But more: you cannot refute these doctrines either; and no Muslim apologist or debater ever has.

    1. You cannot refute the Incarnation. John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 2:14-18
    2. Deity of Christ.
    3. Atonement of Christ and sacrifice and all the background of temple and tabernacle sacrifices of the OT and the preview of it in Genesis 22, etc.
    4. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
    5. Man is dead to God in sin and thoughts and motives; and is guilty. The nature of sin.
    6. The Trinity
    7. The Scriptures are preserved.
    8. Fatherhood of God
    9. Love of God – The Trinity”””

    1&2: John 5:30
    “By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.” Is that what or who Jesus the god of the universe is is? Someone that can do nothing by himself.
    Doesn’t know the hour.
    Denies being good and ascribes it only to the Father.
    etc etc

    3: Fails bigtime since in the end times the Messiah himself will offer a sacrifice for sin including his own (see end of Ezekiel).
    The Jew asking Jesus what he must do to earn salvation and Jesus answers by saying keep the commandmants which proves they werent done away with and no sacrifice of Jesus was required.

    4. Wrong since the book of James explicitly says that faith without works is DEAD.
    James 2:14-26 says
    What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
    18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
    25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
    26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

    5. He can be forgiven through repentance just like the jews in the OT. They didn’t need to believe in Jesus his sacrifice and were saved non the less.

    6. The trinity was NEVER taught by Jesus cus if he wanted people to believe in it he would have mentioned it explicitly since it’s one of the most important doctrines.
    Jesus says explicitly that the Father is the ONLY true God John 17:3. This is impossible if the trinity is true cus you cannot have one ‘person’ of the godhead saying about another person of the godhead that he (one person) is the ONLY true God. If one person is the only true God then the others can’t be. You can play as much verbal gymnastics with this as you wish. It won’t help.
    Furthermore Jesus denied being God in Mark and denied knowing the Hour. All dominion is said to be given to the Son, how can he be given dominion if he is the Al-Mighty? These are just a few points of many.

    7. ????????? I’ll just pretend that was a joke and move on.

    8. Father-son/daugther relation is one that is only between creation. The reason for this is that it is unjust to ascribe Fathership to the Al-Mighty since it doesn’t suit His Majesty. God-human relation is a Master-slave relation. A father has authority over his children, not superiority while a Master has both authority and superiority over His slaves. In fact God has a right over everything that we posses. Hence to call Him a father is blasphamous.

    9. Not sure what you mean by that but there is absolutly ZERO equevalence between the self contradicting triune nature and the attribute Love.

    You can become a Muslim now. Welcome to Islam brother Ken.

    Like

  11. You know guys I was reminded of something today that I thought I would share. Yes, missionaries generally piss us off with the constant twisting, misquoting and insults if Islam. And yes sometimes its fun to use some dry sarcasm to fire back BUT I think we have all lost sight of what’s important here.

    We as Muslims have to give dawah out of love and concern for the punishment that will befall them if they insist on their idolatry. Allah says:

    Warn them of the Day of Regret when the matter will be decided, because they’re heedless and are not the ones who used to believe. (19:39)

    Sheikh Abdul Nasir Jangda has some important commentary on this verse that I would like everyone to listen to (@11:52):

    http://tafsir.io/19/39

    For those who didn’t watch the video, Allah is saying warn them out of LOVE of the coming Day of Regret. So don’t let your hatred make your dawah go to waste. Remember that these people honestly don’t know and be patient in calling them towards Allah.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Faiz (quranandbibleblog) wrote:

    Kenny, this is why no one takes you seriously. You are lying through your teeth right now. You and Shamoun had a brief love affair, and you know it. This happened just a couple of months ago.

    Just because I agree with much of his content, when it is quoting texts and making reasonable and intellectual arguments, does not mean that I agree with his sometimes sinful anger. I pray for him and do have Christian love for him. He has a lot of great material about Islam and so does David Wood and it just bugs you guys that you cannot deal with their arguments, when it is intellectually and textually based, and is backed up with evidence.

    Paul Williams also told me he is challenged by some of his arguments. I guess that is why he lets him comment and also tried to allow him to write a couple of articles.

    The problem comes when he cannot resist to throw a snarky insult; and you do the same all the time. You have the same crappy “fight back” vengeance, in your face type character. You are worse, because when I call you out on it, you come back with all sorts of evil judging of motives and saying “you are whinny baby” and “Kendra” and stuff.

    No; you are the one who has an evil heart and evil character; you are a slave to sin to your heart of sinful character. (Mark 7:20-23; Ephesians 2:1-3; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9)

    At least Stewjo004 has the right approach and obeys Surah 29:46 and what he wrote above is good warning to you and others who use your evil methods.

    Like

    • “and it just bugs you guys that you cannot deal with their arguments, when it is intellectually and textually based, and is backed up with evidence.”

      O brother…
      It is opposite day everyday for Ken.
      We have dealt with their ‘arguments’ many times. We are not the ones that machine gun 50 thousand irrelavant tangents when faced with arguments like shamoun does.
      Saying that they have irrefutable arguments coming from you is quiet funny seeing how you and they mutilate the bible to make it say things that it doesn’t like you do and did with the verses I quoted above.
      ‘Nonono jesus doesn’t deny being good’ ‘Nonono jesus doesn’t deny being God in john 17:3’ and on and on.

      Shamoun is horse excrement at best and started whining like a little girl when his gayfriend got eaten alive by Mohamed Hijab. More will come to his gayfriend and to that pile of excrement in the future.

      To tell you the truth Ken, sometimes I don’t even want them to stop being disgusting and unbelievebly arrogant and rude and narcissistic. Sometimes I want them to live LOOOOONG and COMFORTABLE lives with little to no hardship and let them swim in all their filth and earn as much sin as possible so that they roasted for eternity with intense regret, sorrow and remorse.
      I know I shouldn’t feel this way buy I it does happen now and then and I am not proud of it and should work on removing that feeling forever.
      But they do their utmost best to make it extremely hard.

      I laugh at their trash articles and arguments which don’t impact or damage my faith in the slittest (actually it helps it increase) but it’s their inner filth to say the things they say and do the things they do that does get to me sometimes.

      I can’t find a single person on our side that has even an ounce of fame that behaves this filthy and this disgusting to the Christian side. Not one. It’s always the Christians. Always!!!

      And this is why I don’t believe in this pathetic myth of love that you always hear from xtians. It makes me cringe.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Dear Atlas

        Speaking as a Christian born into Roman Catholicism but in the process of converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, I have no malice towards you or your religion. Muslims by and large allowed the blessed God bearing Monks of the Holy Church to worship in peace and for this I am grateful.
        My stance on your prophet is one of polite indifference, he may have been good, bad or somewhere in between. It is not my business to judge one way or the other.
        However your reference to my protestant cousins is hardly appropriate to well mannered an mutually beneficial religious dialogue. Turn to the Holy Virgin Maryam the Theotokos, ask for her infallible intersession before the throne of God as in the words of the Holy St John of Damascus, of holy and blessed memory:

        ‘Let the whole of creation make festival and sing of the most holy birth-giving of the holy Anna. For she bore for the world an inviolable treasury of blessings. Through her the Creator transformed all nature into a better state by means of humanity. For if a human being stands between mind and matter, since he is the bond between all visible and invisible creation, the creative Word of God, having become unified with the nature of humanity, was unified through it with the whole of creation. Let us then celebrate the dissolution of human sterility since our incapacity for blessings has been dissolved.

        But why has the Virgin Mother been born from a sterile woman? For that which alone is new under the sun, the culmination of miracles, the way had to be prepared by means of miracles, and what was greater had to advance slowly from what was more humble. And I have another more exalted and divine reason. Nature has been defeated by grace and stands trembling, no longer ready to take the lead. Therefore when the God-bearing Virgin was about to be born from Anna, nature did not dare to anticipate the offshoot of grace; instead it remained without fruit until grace sprouted its fruit. For it was necessary for her to be the first-born, she who would bear the “Firstborn of all creation” in whom “all things subsist” (Col 1.15,17).

        O blessed couple, Joachim and Anna, all nature is indebted to you! For through you it has offered a gift to the Creator which is more excellent than all [other] gifts: a holy mother who alone is worthy of the Creator. O most all-blessed loins of Joachim, from which a wholly unblemished seed was sent forth! O renowned womb of Anna, in which slowly, with additions from her, an all-holy infant grew, and once it had taken shape, was born! O belly that contained within itself a living heaven, vaster than the immensity of [all] the heavens!….

        Today he, who once in ancient times established the firmament out of water and raised it up to the heights, has prepared heaven on earth out of earthly nature. And truly, this [heaven] is much more divine and miraculous than that [firmament]. For the One who at that time prepared the sun, arose from this [earthly nature] as a Sun of righteousness (Mal 4.2)….

        O, by how many marvels and by what alliances has this little daughter become a workshop! Offspring of sterility, virginity that bears a child, a mixture of both divinity and humanity, of suffering and impassibility, of life and death, as if [for him] the inferior had been vanquished by the greater in all things! And all these things, O Master, are for the sake of my salvation! You so loved me that you brought about this [salvation], not by means of angels, nor by any creature, but, just as in the first creation, you worked with your own hand [my] regeneration. And so I dance and boast and rejoice; I return again to the source of the miracles and, filled with the stream of happiness, I again pluck the harp of the Spirit and sing a divine hymn of the nativity….

        Let the celebrated tabernacle which Moses constructed in a desert with all manner of very precious materials, and the [tabernacle] of the patriarch Abraham before that, give way to the living and rational tabernacle of God. For she was the receptacle not just of the activity of God, but essentially of the hypostasis of the Son of God. Let a tabernacle that was entirely covered with gold recognize that it cannot compare with her, along with a golden jar which contained manna, a lampstand, a table, and all the other objects from long ago. For they have been honored as her types, as shadows of a true archetype….

        O holy couple, Joachim and Anna, accept from me this birthday oration! O daughter of Joachim and Anna and lady, accept an oration from one who is a sinful servant but who is on fire with love and reverence, and who has clung to you alone as hope of joy, supporter of life, mediator towards your Son, and firm pledge of salvation! May you disperse the burden of my sins and the cloud that overshadows my mind and dissolve my material insensibility! And may you put a stop to my temptations, govern my life in holiness, and lead me by the hand to the blessed state above! May you grant peace to the world and perfect joy and eternal salvation to all the orthodox inhabitants of this city through the prayers of your parents and of the whole body of the Church! Let it be, let it be! “Hail, favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1.28,42), Jesus Christ, the Son of God. To him be glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit to the infinity of the ages of ages. Amen.’

        God love you all. Glory to God in his saints

        Liked by 1 person

      • Tobias thank you for your kind comment. My apologies if I come/came across harsh and/or rude. I know I can be irritating to deal with.
        It’s the kind comments like these that calm me down and make me (self) reflect which is something I lack (which is something vast majority of people, including many hardcore believers, lack).
        But I can’t be nice against someone like shamoun or david wood. Being nice and fluffy at that point becomes wrong and goes over the limit of being loving. I should try and not lower myself to the level they are but being nice to the vilest things they utter is also equally wrong if not more.
        However I will try to refrain myself from throwing out insults for the benefit of this blog and for my own benefit and for the benefit of my faith. And having kind people like you make kind and wel mannered comments certainly helps and is a welcome sight for sure.
        Again thanks for your kind comment.

        Peace

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Atlas

        Me while reading your last post 👀

        But yeah, you pretty much summed up my feelings as well, the only add-on I have is:

        “And I shudder and cringe when I think of the number of sins that go on their scales EVERY DAY or how much Allah must hate them seeing as how much He has closed off their hearts leading them blindly towards the Fire. No human language on Earth can express the joy I’ll feel when I see those human shayateen’s faces when their idol Jesus denies them and their worship and they realize that they’re all alone as the angels herd them forward for their Lord’s judgment.”

        Sigh. However, when Allah sent Musa(as) to the Pharaoh he still had to present the message to him nicely even though EVERYBODY knew he wasn’t going to be a Muslim. I mean the dude literally killed babies every 2 years. So think of it like this, you’re just establishing more proof against them on Qiyamah and leaving them with no excuses to have rejected the Message. That’s what gets me through ahki. That’s what gets me through.

        Like

    • The very fact that you think Shamoun was making legitimate arguments just goes to show how confused and hypocritical you are. On more than one occasion, Shamoun went of on tangents instead of dealing with the topic, whether that was the Biblical error regarding rabbits (something he has still YET to respond to) or the flat earth of Matthew 4 (also something he didn’t respond to). In both cases, he was abusive and decided to ramble on with long posts not even remotely dealing with the topic. It seems to me that you are still a little bit of a suck-up. Perhaps you think that this will keep Shamoun off your back. You know, offer praises once in a while so that his ego remains satisfied and so he won’t attack you.

      And I did not see you say anything to Shamoun until you were called out for your deafening silence. Stop pretending like you are a reasonable person, because you are not.

      Like

      • Dear Mr Faiz

        Dear Sir, please forgive me, may i ask to whom you are referring. By the by I do indeed condemn persons such as Mr Shamoun and Mr Wood as followers of Luther Calvin and other errant western theologians, in that their teaching on the matters of of the Holy Mother of God and the holy saints goes against infallible church teaching.

        God and St Mary be with you

        Like

      • Hi Tobias. I was referring to Ken, not you.

        Like

  13. Dear Mr Temple and Mr Faiz

    Gentlemen, compose yourselves. You do a disservice to both of your religious Traditions.

    God love you

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Dear Atlas

    God bless you. I hate to sound insipid, but i fear the principle of ‘turn the other cheek’ must be employed. I have been spat upon and been condemned as a Mary worshipper by certain extreme protestants who under the yolk of Luther Calvin and Cranmer, May their names be given mercy in the afterlife.

    God Love you

    Liked by 1 person

    • I realize that official doctrine says that praying to saints and Mary using icons (Eastern Orthodoxy) and statues (Roman Catholicism) is not worship to God (Latria), but veneration and hyper-dulia (higher veneration but not worship) to Mary and the saints.

      However, it gives the impression that those people are praying to and worshiping the dead saints. (alive in heaven, but dead on earth).

      This is what the early Arab Muslims thought, Muhammad, etc. and most Muslims today even think this.

      Surah 5:116 – clearly the author of the Qur’an thought that the Trinity was 3 gods of God (the Father), Son (Jesus), and Mother (Mary).

      When God says, ‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, “Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God”?’ he will say, ‘May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say- if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen-

      Where did they get this impression?

      From all the icons and statues of Mary and emphasis on Mary and hearing the Christians call her “Mother of God”. (Theotokos (the one bearing God = Jesus in the womb) at the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon is properly understood as saying that Jesus was always Deity from conception and existed in Spirit as the eternal Son/Word before conception – John 1:1; 17:5 (eternal Son), but the Marian piety and emphasis gives the wrong impression.

      Surah 5:73 shows this also:

      They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

      Surah 5:75 shows that the other 2 besides Allah/God is that they thought the other 2 gods were Jesus and Mary – “they both used to eat food” = they are not “gods” and the Christians are wrong to worship 3 gods. (What they thought the Trinity was, based on hearing, lack of understanding, seeing the Christians praying before icons and statues and the emphasis on Mary all the time in these churches.

      “The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.”

      Could this emphasis on Mary and praying to icons and statues and St. Sophronius’ comments demonstrate the judgement of God by removing the lamp stands (churches, being light, proclaiming truth and light) – taking that away, as predicted / prophesied by Jesus in Revelation 2:4-5 ?

      “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lamp stand out of its place—unless you repent.” Revelation 2:4-5

      Like

      • “Surah 5:116 – clearly the author of the Qur’an thought that the Trinity was 3 gods of God (the Father), Son (Jesus), and Mother (Mary).”

        You have been throwing out this lie for ages but always fail to prove it.
        This verse nor any other vers mentions the trinity. So your wishful thinking thatbthe Quran gets your pagan doctrine wrong is just that, wishful thinking.
        Even your own book doesn’t teach that.

        Get over it.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Nope; it is obvious, the author of Qur’an thought that the Trinity was God, the Son, and the Mother. Face it; it is too obvious.
        The ignorance of Christian doctrine in 610-632 was also amazing.

        Like

      • “Nope; it is obvious, the author of…”

        And that’s why you’ll remain the laughing stock Ken cus your pathetic “it is obvious” statements only impresses simpletons. God, you’re arguments are awful. It’s like you’re not even trying.
        Prove it’s talking about your pagan trinity or stop wasting everyone’s time. You’re becoming the world’s most broken record.

        Liked by 4 people

      • “Nope; it is obvious, the author of Qur’an thought that the Trinity was God, the Son, and the Mother. Face it; it is too obvious.
        The ignorance of Christian doctrine in 610-632 was also amazing.”

        Uh no. Show where it says “trinity”. Stop beating around the bush. Face it. It is too obvious that you are trying to twist the verse to suit your agenda, just like you twist the Jewish books to suit your agenda. But this mental gymnastics is very easy to refute.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Trinity means “threeness” or “three-fold”. The Qur’an was ignorant of that put recognized “three”, which to this day, many Muslims still think that.

        But the original Latin is 2 words (Tertullian) Trinitas Unitas (three in One)

        Like

      • “Trinity means “threeness” or “three-fold”. The Qur’an was ignorant of that put recognized “three”, which to this day, many Muslims still think that.

        But the original Latin is 2 words (Tertullian) Trinitas Unitas (three in One)”

        So you cannot answer my challenge then? You admit the Quran does not say “trinity”?

        Like

      • Because they were ignorant of the doctrine and languages and creeds that were already established for centuries. All they could go by was what they were hearing and seeing (icons, statues).

        “say not three” – that is what the Qur’an wrongly things the Trinity is – 3 gods.

        Yet, it is One God in three persons.

        Like

      • Again, every different sect thought it was the “true” one. Just because you say they were heretics doesn’t prove anything. In the light of the Quran, you are ALL heretics.

        You keep jumping around with the Quran just like you do with the Bible. Where does Surah 5:116 say “trinity”?

        Liked by 1 person

      • “say not three” and “a third of three” in 4:171 and 5:72-75 shows they thought about “three” and in 5:116 he says, “did I say take me and my mother as 2 gods besides Allah?”
        It is obvious that is what the Qur’an thought the Trinity was.

        Like

      • Again you are jumping around, just like with the Bible. Where does Surah 5:116 say anything about a trinity?

        Like

      • those verses provide the context of how the Qur’an understands the trinity. “me and my mother as 2 gods besides Allah” adds up to 3, and they (and you also) think and accuse of 3 gods.

        You are just goofy to keep on avoiding the obvious.

        Like

      • Uh no they don’t. These verses are collectively refuting ALL heretical beliefs, whether it is the trinity, or Mary-worship.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Calm down Ken. Remember, we’re trying to have a civilized discussion. If you want, I can start with the name-calling too, as you know all too well.

        You have yet to meet my challenge and keep going in circles. Don’t blame your failures on me. Be frustrated with yourself and your inability to be objective and honest.

        Like

      • In light of NT, the Qur’an is heresy and 600 years too late, and man-made.

        Like

      • In light of the OT, the NT is a heresy and hundreds of years too late and man-made.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Nope, cause Jesus Al Masih is Lord and God and the human author of the NT books are Jews who are constantly quoting the OT.

        The Qur’an is far removed, 600 years late, and doesn’t even know the content of the OT nor the NT. (no quotes except a phrase of one, uses apocrypal gnostic books, heretical books, legends, myths,)

        Like

      • More circular arguments. Using your logic, since Allah is God then that overrides and refutes your opinion.

        All you have done is provide circular arguments over and over again. You have brought NOTHING concrete or objective.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think Ken realizes he’s cornered, and that’s why he tries desperately to distract you, brothers.
        Ken, you simply are dishonest, and you know it!

        Liked by 4 people

      • Indeed. Christians have realized the conundrum they are in for a long time. That is why they have had been reinterpreting books like Ezekiel since the early days of the church.

        Like

      • Nah, not cornered at all; and not trying to distract either.

        Like

    • “I realize that official doctrine says that praying to saints and Mary using icons (Eastern Orthodoxy) and statues (Roman Catholicism) is not worship to God (Latria), but veneration and hyper-dulia (higher veneration but not worship) to Mary and the saints.

      However, it gives the impression that those people are praying to and worshiping the dead saints. (alive in heaven, but dead on earth).

      This is what the early Arab Muslims thought, Muhammad, etc. and most Muslims today even think this.

      Surah 5:116 – clearly the author of the Qur’an thought that the Trinity was 3 gods of God (the Father), Son (Jesus), and Mother (Mary).”

      The problem is that Christians have had literally dozens if not hundreds of heresies and sub-heresies. It is a fact that there WERE Christians who LITERALLY worshiped Mary, such as the Colloridians.

      Moreover, worship can entail many different activities. Even if you don’t actually pray to Mary as you would to God, simply ASKING Mary or directing any requests to her would be an act of worship. So you don’t have to literally bow down to a statue of Mary. Simply praying to the statue as if Mary can hear you would be an act of shirk according to Islam. The point is that the issue is much more complex than Ken tries to make it out to be.

      “Where did they get this impression?”

      From many different Christian sects. Some did literally worship Mary.

      “Surah 5:75 shows that the other 2 besides Allah/God is that they thought the other 2 gods were Jesus and Mary – “they both used to eat food” = they are not “gods” and the Christians are wrong to worship 3 gods. (What they thought the Trinity was, based on hearing, lack of understanding, seeing the Christians praying before icons and statues and the emphasis on Mary all the time in these churches.”

      As Atlas pointed out, there is mention of the trinity in that verse at all.

      Liked by 2 people

      • The combination of all those verses prove that the author of the Qur’an was describing what he mistakenly thought was the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. His mistake proves this book is not an inspired book – just a man-made religion.

        Surah 5:116 is obvious; especially when one sees the other verses that speak of 3, etc.

        “Did I say take My Mother and myself as 2 gods besides Allah?” = 3 gods; what the Muslims thought the Trinity was.
        Surah 5:72-75 – “3rd of three” and “Jesus and Mary both ate food”, and “there is only one God”
        Surah 4:171 – “do not say three”

        The author of the Qur’an is ignorant, which proves it is not inspired and Muhammad is not a prophet from God and that Islam is a false religion.

        the Colloridians – yes, they were a small group that offered raisin cakes to Mary in what is today Northern Saudi Arabia and areas of Jordan, but they were very small and minor compared to all the icons and statues that the Muslims say in the rest of the Muslim world.

        Like

      • “The combination of all those verses prove that the author of the Qur’an was describing what he mistakenly thought was the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. His mistake proves this book is not an inspired book – just a man-made religion.”

        You twist your Bible, and then you do the same with the Quran. There is no mention of the trinity in those verses! Period.

        And to be “Christian” meant different things to different people. Christianity has had many faces. All the different sects thought they were the “true” Christians.

        The mistakes are only in your Bible, as we have seen. The NT authors mistakenly interpreted Ezekiel as referring to Jesus, even though the text clearly refers to the literal temple.

        ““Did I say take My Mother and myself as 2 gods besides Allah?” = 3 gods; what the Muslims thought the Trinity was.”

        Again, show me where it says “trinity”. You know you can’t, because it’s not there.

        “The author of the Qur’an is ignorant, which proves it is not inspired and Muhammad is not a prophet from God and that Islam is a false religion.”

        Actually, the author of the Quran knows more about Christian history than Christians themselves. This proves that it is from a divine source. Christianity is a false religion which relies on dishonest interpretations.

        “the Colloridians – yes, they were a small group that offered raisin cakes to Mary in what is today Northern Saudi Arabia and areas of Jordan, but they were very small and minor compared to all the icons and statues that the Muslims say in the rest of the Muslim world.”

        Nevertheless, they thought that they were the true Christians. This proves conclusively that you are cherry-picking verses out of context and then adding your own interpretations. The Quran rightly condemns ALL false beliefs about Jesus and his mother.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Coming out of Church no less

    Like

  16. “I should clarify somewhat – I don’t think Ezekiel 40-48 is about a rebuilt temple FUTURE to us.”

    Of course you don’t, because that would disprove Christianity and you can’t have that. But that is exactly what Ezekiel shows. The main reason is because ch. 38-39 talk about the battle with Gog and Magog. If Ezekiel’s “vision” of a rebuilt temple was referring to the temple built after the end of the Babylonian captivity, then it is a false prophecy that disproves both Judaism and Christianity. Since there was no battle, this is why Jews interpret Ezekiel as referring to prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled.

    :If you notice throughout the book of Ezekiel, he says he has “visions of God”. Ezekiel was written and took place during the Babylonian captivity around 593 BC to about sometime later after the destruction of the temple in 586 BC by Nebuchadnezzar – up until 571 BC. It is about the glory of God leaving the temple because of the sins of Israel and the vision and hope of the future of re-building the temple. The temple was rebuilt in Ezra-Nehemiah’s return AND it was expanded upon and enhanced under the Jewish leadership and Herod the Great for 40 years. (the 2nd temple) John 2:19-22″

    Yes, and the “glory of God” returns to the temple and God promises that He would dwell with the Israelites FOREVER and that the Israelites would never again practice idolatry:

    “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites forever. The people of Israel will never again defile my holy name—neither they nor their kings—by their prostitution and the funeral offerings[b] for their kings at their death.” (43:7)

    This implies that the temple will never be destroyed again. Of course, this did happen again in 70 CE. So, if you are a Jew or Christian, either this is a false prophecy or it is referring to a future event. There is a third option as well, which is that Ezekiel, like all the other books of the Bible, are not inspired by God, and thus are not reliable anyway.

    “John 2:19-22 shows us, along with John 1:14, that John understands the coming of Christ as the glory of God returning to the temple, and that the true temple is Jesus’ body. The constant allusions to water flowing and God providing water, and the Holy Spirit are allusions back to Ezekiel – that God is fulfilling Ezekiel’s vision in Christ, the true Messiah, and His final atonement, the church, etc.”

    Again, of course Christians had to reinterpret these vague prophecies when they were not fulfilled. But the text of Ezekiel is clearly referring to the literal temple, not to some weird “bodily” temple. The text uses language that can only be applied to a building:

    “Then the man brought me to the gate facing east, 2 and I saw the glory of the God of Israel coming from the east. His voice was like the roar of rushing waters, and the land was radiant with his glory. 3 The vision I saw was like the vision I had seen when he[a] came to destroy the city and like the visions I had seen by the Kebar River, and I fell facedown. 4 The glory of the Lord entered the temple through the gate facing east. 5 Then the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple.

    6 While the man was standing beside me, I heard someone speaking to me from inside the temple. 7 He said: “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites forever. The people of Israel will never again defile my holy name—neither they nor their kings—by their prostitution and the funeral offerings[b] for their kings at their death.[c] 8 When they placed their threshold next to my threshold and their doorposts beside my doorposts, with only a wall between me and them, they defiled my holy name by their detestable practices. So I destroyed them in my anger. 9 Now let them put away from me their prostitution and the funeral offerings for their kings, and I will live among them forever.

    10 “Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider its perfection, 11 and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple—its arrangement, its exits and entrances—its whole design and all its regulations[d] and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.

    12 “This is the law of the temple: All the surrounding area on top of the mountain will be most holy. Such is the law of the temple.”

    You would have to extremely dishonest to claim that this is all metaphorical and was actually referring symbolically to Jesus’ “body”. It just does not work.

    “The Christians who hold to a literal understanding of Ezekiel think that 1948 and Israel being re-established as a nation, are pre-events that will eventually lead to another 3rd rebuilt temple being rebuilt on the temple mount where the Al Aqsa Mosque is and where the Dome of the Rock is. So far, I don’t see any evidence that 1948 is a fulfillment of prophesy, but many conservative Christians do think that. (Christian Zionism is one aspect of that movement; but not all Bible believing Christians are convinced of that scenario.”

    Indeed, many Christians believe this, and the reason for that is because the alternative interpretation is unthinkable to them: that Ezekiel is wrong and both Judaism and Christianity are false religions. The other interpretation, using symbolism, simply is not a viable alternative.

    “I believe the book of Hebrews and the rest of the NT demonstrates that Christ and the Church and the eternal state will fulfill the final culmination of what God is communicating in Ezekiel 40-48.
    (also 37:27 shows the church fulfills that – 2 Cor. 6:16)”

    We can see above why that is not the case. Appealing to a metaphorical fulfillment is simply a cop-out because the literal fulfillment is also fraught with problems.

    There is another reason why the literal fulfillment does not appeal to Christians. If Ezekiel is referring to a future rebuilding of the temple, complete with the laws of the temple, it would disprove Christianity instantaneously. If Jesus served as the final be-all/end-all sacrifice, then there would be no need for the temple sacrifices to be done. Even the law prohibiting uncircumcised men (the gentiles) from entering the temple is to be followed. That would refute Paul and his entire mission to the gentiles.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The interpretation that seems more correct, that Christ Himself is the final temple and the glory of God returned to God’s people, and the final sacrifice so that there will no more Biblical temple in Jerusalem future to us; is the same basic interpretation that has been for all three major branches of Christendom, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and historical Protestants.

      Tobias’ tradition would probably agree with this position. (which is basically an A-Millennial position)

      John 1:14
      And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and beheld His glory, glory of the one and only unique Son, full of grace and truth.

      This shows the coming of Christ is the glory of God returned. God is dwelling again with His people on earth through the church in local churches.

      John 2:19-22
      Shows that the true temple is Jesus Christ Himself, fulfilling Ezekiel’s book.

      Ezekiel 37:27 is quoted in 2 Cor. 6:16 shows the fulfillment is in the New Testament church, when the true people of God – both Jews and Gentile nations who trust in Messiah Jesus, come together in local churches for worship, prayer, Bible teaching, the Lord’s supper.

      The Pre-Millennial / Pre-tribulationalism of Dispensationalism, which is what is behind most of “Christian Zionism” is a new interpretation in the history of theology – it started in the 1800s. They think 1948 and the re-establishment of Israel is a fulfillment of prophesy. I don’t think so.

      But they also think the sacrifices of Ezekiel 40-48 are memorial sacrifices – looking back to Messiah Jesus’ final sacrifice.

      That, to me, does not make sense.

      The book of Hebrews and the rest of the NT shows that Christ is the final sacrifice.

      Read Revelation chapters 21 and 22 and see all the references back to Ezekiel – the water flowing from the throne of God, trees and fruit for the healing of the nations – the eternal state is the fulfillment of a lot of the things in Ezekiel. The water flowing from God Himself is a symbol of His Holy Spirit flowing through true believers.

      John 4:14
      John 7:37-39

      Like

      • “The interpretation that seems more correct, that Christ Himself is the final temple and the glory of God returned to God’s people, and the final sacrifice so that there will no more Biblical temple in Jerusalem future to us; is the same basic interpretation that has been for all three major branches of Christendom, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and historical Protestants.”

        Except that this “interpretation” is foolish at best, and is borne out of a need to keep moving the goalpost every time the previous interpretation doesn’t pan out. The book of Ezekiel is clear that the temple sacrifices would be restarted. It goes into minute detail about the procedure and rituals. To claim that is all “metaphorical” and was actually referring to Jesus is completely dishonest.

        “John 1:14
        And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and beheld His glory, glory of the one and only unique Son, full of grace and truth.

        This shows the coming of Christ is the glory of God returned. God is dwelling again with His people on earth through the church in local churches.”

        No, all it shows is that Christians had to get creative to account for the all the false prophecies and theological contradictions as a result of Ezekiel. As I showed, the text of Ezekiel refers LITERALLY to a building, the temple. No amount of mental gymnastics will turn those literal descriptions into a metaphorical reference to Jesus’ “body”.

        “John 2:19-22
        Shows that the true temple is Jesus Christ Himself, fulfilling Ezekiel’s book.”

        There was no fulfillment because Ezekiel was referring to the actual temple itself, not to some weird “bodily” temple, which is really a pagan concept.

        “Ezekiel 37:27 is quoted in 2 Cor. 6:16 shows the fulfillment is in the New Testament church, when the true people of God – both Jews and Gentile nations who trust in Messiah Jesus, come together in local churches for worship, prayer, Bible teaching, the Lord’s supper.”

        Again, it only shows that Christians had to get creative because the alternative explanation was too uncomfortable and would have forced Christians to acknowledge the contradictions in their religion.

        Paul’s (mis)quote of Ezekiel 37:27 shows that he was cherry-picking OT verses for his own agenda. When read in context, Ezekiel 37:27 actually refutes Pauline Christianity and Christianity in general:

        “My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.’””

        This is clearly referring to the Jews, not to Gentile or Jewish Christians. The prophecy states that they would “live in the land” and follow God’s laws. None of this happened with the coming of Christianity. Christians don’t follow the laws, and the Jews themselves were not to stay in the Holy Land, because beginning by 70 CE, they were expelled from there. And the nations did not “know” the God of Israel at all.

        Again, dishonest and deliberate twisting of the text shows that Christians had to get creative. They had no other choice…other than being honest.

        “The Pre-Millennial / Pre-tribulationalism of Dispensationalism, which is what is behind most of “Christian Zionism” is a new interpretation in the history of theology – it started in the 1800s. They think 1948 and the re-establishment of Israel is a fulfillment of prophesy. I don’t think so.”

        What they believe is irrelevant. Muslims don’t care what they believe. The point is that the book of Ezekiel refutes Christianity, which is why there are different interpretations among Christians, except the one that settles the matter: Ezekiel speaks of a future temple complete with the temple rituals and sacrifices, hence eliminating the need for Jesus’ “atonement”. Ergo, Ezekiel completely refutes Christianity.

        “But they also think the sacrifices of Ezekiel 40-48 are memorial sacrifices – looking back to Messiah Jesus’ final sacrifice.”

        Which is also a dishonest reading of the text. It says nothing about “memorial sacrifices”

        “The book of Hebrews and the rest of the NT shows that Christ is the final sacrifice.”

        Which is why Ezekiel is a thorn on the side of the church. It COMPLETELY eliminates the need for Christ as the “final sacrifice”.

        “Read Revelation chapters 21 and 22 and see all the references back to Ezekiel – the water flowing from the throne of God, trees and fruit for the healing of the nations – the eternal state is the fulfillment of a lot of the things in Ezekiel. The water flowing from God Himself is a symbol of His Holy Spirit flowing through true believers.”

        Again, only more proof that Christians were stuck and had to get creative. Ezekiel said nothing about a “new” Jerusalem coming out of heaven. And Revelation 21:22 clearly contradicts Ezekiel, because the latter speaks of a literal temple in the city. Thus, either Revelation is wrong or Ezekiel is wrong. Either way, Christianity is wrong.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Wow! It’s really a good response, Faiz. Good job!

      //You would have to extremely dishonest to claim that this is all metaphorical and was actually referring symbolically to Jesus’ “body”. It just does not work.//
      I completely agree with this statement, and that’s why I think christians are indeed dishonest when it comes to this passage.

      Liked by 2 people

      • It works because the New Testament is God’s word and inspired and it is very clear that Jesus Himself said in John 2:19-22 that He Himself is the fulfillment of the temple; Jesus is the true temple.

        19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
        20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
        21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
        22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

        Like

      • “It works because the New Testament is God’s word and inspired and it is very clear that Jesus Himself said in John 2:19-22 that He Himself is the fulfillment of the temple; Jesus is the true temple.

        19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
        20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
        21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
        22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.”

        Nothing but a circular argument. Moreover, we know that the NT is not God’s word or inspired as it completely misquotes Ezekiel. I have shown the evidence that Ezekiel was referring to a literal temple. I think it’s ironic that you more often quote the NT to explain what Ezekiel was saying rather than quoting Ezekiel to explain what Ezekiel was saying. That is not a coincidence. You know that you have to read Ezekiel through the later NT, because if you let Ezekiel speak for itself, you will see Christianity crumble.

        Jesus cannot be the “true temple”, because God’s glory was supposed to enter from the east gate of the literal temple. It is a literal building, not some flesh and blood being.

        Liked by 3 people

  17. Dear Mr Faiz

    From an Orthodox Christian perspective, the concept of religious Zionism, with a rebuilt Temple without the prescience and glory of the Holy Spirit, is a terrible concept indeed. It would herald the presence of the Antichrist, according to the Holy Fathers, of holy and blessed memory Need i remind you that many Palestinian Christians, both Roman and Holy Orthodox, have perished due to the attacks of the modern day Israeli government. Eternal rest grant unto them, Oh Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace Amen.

    God and St Mary be with you

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Tobias. I agree. Zionism is a great evil and I was not defending it as a Biblical concept. I was saying that the book of Ezekiel clearly speaks of a future temple, but that it is also not a divinely inspired book at all. It cannot be. Think about it. It talks about a new temple with God’s “glory” residing there “forever” and never to leave again. Well, the temple was rebuilt but it was clearly not forever. This shows that the book was wrong. Moreover, even if Christian Zionists believe it refers to the future, they would have to acknowledge that such an interpretation would create serious problems for their religion as it would mean that Jesus’ alleged “sacrifice” was useless. Since it was supposed to replace the temple sacrifices, and since the temple sacrifices are supposed to be restarted, then it follows that Christianity’s central and most important tenet is false.

      Like

  18. St. Sophronius, the bishop and Patriarch of Jerusalem at the time of Omar’s attacks and conquerings, (bishop, 634-638 AD) calls the Islamic invasions “the abomination of desolations” – that Daniel and Matthew 24 and Mark 13 refer to.

    He also admits that God was judging them “because of our innumerable sins”, etc.

    Could this be a fulfillment of Revelation 2:4-5 ?

    He also quotes from Romans 2:24

    The initial Muslim takeover of Jerusalem in 637-638 was a catastrophe to the Christians. The Life of St Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, offers this synopsis:

    Toward the end of his life, St Sophronius and his flock lived through a two year siege of Jerusalem by the Moslems. Worn down by hunger, the Christians finally agreed to open the city gates, on the condition that the enemy spare the holy places. But this condition was not fulfilled, and St Sophronius died in grief over the desecration of the Christian holy places.
    Sophronius’ own writings reveal just how brutal was the early Islamic jihad: [2]

    We, however, because of our innumerable sins and serious misdemeanours, are unable to see these things, and are prevented from entering Bethlehem by way of the road. Unwillingly, indeed, contrary to our wishes, we are required to stay at home, not bound closely by bodily bonds, but bound by fear of the Saracens. (Christmas Sermon, 634 A.D.)

    At once that of the Philistines, so now the army of the godless Saracens has captured the divine Bethlehem and bars our passage there, threatening slaughter and destruction if we leave this holy city and dare to approach our beloved and sacred Bethlehem. (Christmas Sermon 634 A.D.)

    [This dates to the 6th of December in 636 or 637.]:
    But the present circumstances are forcing me to think differently about our way of life, for why are [so many] wars being fought among us? Why do barbarian raids abound? Why are the troops of the Saracens [Muslims] attacking us? Why has there been so much destruction and plunder? Why are there incessant outpourings of human blood? Why are the birds of the sky devouring human bodies? Why have churches been pulled down? Why is the cross mocked? Why is Christ, who is the dispenser of all good things and the provider of this joyousness of ours, blasphemed by pagan mouths (ethnikois tois stomasi) so that he justly cries out to us: “Because of you my name is blasphemed among the pagans,” [Romans 2:24; Isaiah 52:5; 2 Samuel 12:14; Ezekiel 36:17-21] and this is the worst of all the terrible things that are happening to us. That is why the vengeful and God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets, overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries, oppose the Byzantine armies arrayed against them, and in fighting raise up the trophies [of war] and add victory to victory. Moreover, they are raised up more and more against us and increase their blasphemy of Christ and the church, and utter wicked blasphemies against God. Those God-fighters boast of prevailing over all, assiduously and unrestrainably imitating their leader, who is the devil, and emulating his vanity because of which he has been expelled from heaven and been assigned to the gloomy shades. Yet these vile ones would not have accomplished this nor seized such a degree of power as to do and utter lawlessly all these things, unless we had first insulted the gift [of baptism] and first defiled the purification, and in this way grieved Christ, the giver of gifts, and prompted him to be angry with us, good though he is and though he takes no pleasure in evil, being the fount of kindness and not wishing to behold the ruin and destruction of men. We are ourselves, in truth, responsible for all these things and no word will be found for our defence. What word or place will be given us for our defence when we have taken all these gifts from him, befouled them and defiled everything with our vile actions? (Holy Baptism, 166-167)

    with my emphasis in bold and providing references

    Like

    • @ Ken

      Yeah, that makes no sense for three reasons:

      1. Christians were using Masjid AL Aqsa as a GARBAGE DUMP. So they were hardly honoring the temple despite the fact that they had the ability to do so.

      2. The abomination according to your books is when the Roman emperor sacrificed a pig to Zeus in the temple.

      3. Muslims don’t worship idols. And (I could be wrong a brother from Philistine could correct me) don’t even do sacrifices in Masjid Al Aqsa.

      Muslims are the ones who cleansed the Temple and this is symbolic to us being the nation who God has raised up.

      Liked by 2 people

      • 2. 167 BC – was a Greek ruler, Antiochus Ephiphanes.
        but 70 AD was Roman general under Emperor’s commands, beginning with Nero in 66 AD – 70 (temple destroyed) to 73 (Masada)

        Like

      • Both references in Daniel refer to Antiochus.

        Like

      • Makes no sense, since there was no Masjid Al Aqsa there until after Omar conquered the area. It was built in the 690s, way after the time you are referring to.

        they though it was a testimony that should be no more literal temple, since the atonement / crucifixion and resurrection were nearby and testified of the final sacrifice.

        Like

      • Actually it makes perfect sense because a “masjid” doesn’t have to be a building. The whole Earth is a masjid for Muslims.

        Like

      • No, cause Islam did not exist then.

        Like

      • Islam did not exist yet and is a man-made religion, created 600 years later full of warrior spirit – Jihad – Qatl, harb, Al-Jabbar (tyrants, dictators, force), harsh law (Sharia), etc.

        Like

      • Ken, this is why you really need to stop wasting your time on quranandbibleblog, since he has shown he is both inconsistent and dishonest. Here’s why. In order to refute your claim concerning Q. 17:1, he says that masjid doesn’t have to refer to a building. But last time I checked, he is supposed to be a Sunni Muslim. Therefore, let us see what his sources say in respect to masjid al-aqsa.

        According to the Islamic literature the farthest Mosque is actually the Temple of Jerusalem, which is called Bayt ul-Muqaddas in Arabic:

        Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar al-Aslami informed us; he said: Usamah Ibn Zayd al-Laythi related to me on the authority of ‘Amr Ibn Shu’ayb, he on the authority of his father, he on the authority of his (‘Amr’s) grand-father; (second chain) he (Ibn Sa’d) said: Musa Ibn Ya’qub al-Zam’i related to me on the authority of his father, he on the authority of his (Musa’s) grandfather, he on the authority of Umm Salamah; (third chain) Musa said: Abu al-Aswad related to me on the authority of ‘Urwah, he on the authority of ‘Ayishah; (fourth chain) Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar said: Ishaq Ibn Hazim related to me on the authority of Wahb Ibn Kaysan, he on the authority of Abu Murrah the mawla of ‘Aqil, he on the authority of Umm Hani daughter of Abu Talib (fifth chain) he (Ibn Sa’d) said: ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far related to me on the authority of Zakariya Ibn ‘Amr, he on the authority of Abu Mulaykah, he on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas and others; their consolidated narrations are: The Apostle of Allah, was taken by night on the seventeenth night of First Rabi’ before Hijrah, and one year before the blockade in the mountain pass of Abu Talib, to Bayt al-Muqaddas. The Apostle of Allah said: I was mounted on a beast whose size was between a donkey and a mule, with two wings in its thighs, which came up to its hoofs and were set in them. When I went near it to ride, it became restive. Thereupon Gabriel placed his hand on its head and said: O Buraq! are you not ashamed of what you are doing? By Allah no servant of Allah has ridden you before Muhammad, more honoured in the sight of Allah. It felt ashamed till it was covered with sweat, and became calm; then I mounted it. It moved its ears, and the earth shrank to such an extent that its hoofs (seemed to touch its surface) at the end of the range of our sight. It had a long back and long ears. Gabriel accompanied me and he never lost touch with me nor did I till we reached Bayt al-Muqaddas; and al-Buraq reached its halting place. It was tied there and it was the place where the beasts… of the Prophets were tied before the Apostle of Allah. He (the Prophet) said: I saw the Prophets who had assembled there for me. I saw Abraham, Moses and Jesus and, I thought there must be some one to lead them (in prayers); Gabriel made me go forward till I offered prayers in front of them and inquired from them (about their mission). They said: We were commissioned with Unity (of Allah).

        Some of them (narrators) said: The Prophet had disappeared that night, so the members of family of ‘Abd al-Muttalib went out to search him. Al-‘Abbas went to Dhu Tuwa and began to shout: O Muhammad! O Muhammad! The Apostle of Allah said: I am here. He said: O my brother’s son! You have worried the people since the (beginning of the) night, where had you been? He said: I am coming from Bayt al-Muqaddas. He said: In one night? He said: Yes. He said: Did you experience anything which was not good? He said: I did not experience anything but good. Umm Hani said: He was taken on this journey from our house. He slept that night with us; he offered al-‘Isha prayers, and then he slept. When it was pre-dawn we awoke him (to offer) morning (prayers). He got up and when he offered morning prayers he said: O Umm Hani! I offered al’Isha prayers with you as you witnessed, then I reached Bayt Al-Muqaddas and offered prayers there; then I offered morning prayers before you. After this he got up to go out; I said to him: Do not relate this to the people because they will belie you and harm you. He said: By Allah I shall relate to them and inform them. They wondered at it and said: We have never heard a thing like this. The Apostle of Allah said to Gabriel; O Gabriel! my people will not confirm it. He said: Abu Bakr will testify to it; and he is al-Siddiq. The narrator added: Many people who had embraced Islam and offered prayers went astray. (The Prophet continued,) I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said: HOW MANY DOORS ARE THERE IN THAT MOSQUE? I HAD NOT COUNTED THEM SO I BEGAN TO LOOK AT IT AND COUNTED THEM ONE BY ONE AND GAVE THEM INFORMATION CONCERNING THEM. I also gave information about their caravan which was on the way and its signs. They found them as I had related. Allah, the Almighty, the Great, revealed: “We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind”. He (Ibn Sa’d) said: It refers to the vision of the eye which he saw with the eye. (Ibn Sa’ad, Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India], Volume I, pp. 246-248; bold and capital emphasis ours)

        And:

        Ziyad b. ‘Abdullah al-Bakka’i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following: Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa WHICH IS THE TEMPLE OF AELIA, when Islam had spread in Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes… His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, UNTIL HE CAME TO JERUSALEM’S TEMPLE… In his story al-Hasan said: “The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they arrived AT THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM”… (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 181, 182; capital emphasis ours)

        The renowned Muslim commentator Ibn Kathir writes:

        means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibraham Al-Khalil. The Prophets all gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland. This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 17:1)

        Ibn Kathir narrates some hadiths to confirm this point:

        The Report of Jabir bin `Abdullah

        Imam Ahmad recorded that Jabir bin `Abdullah said that he heard the Messenger of Allah say…

        <> This was also reported in the Two Sahihs with different chains of narration. According to Al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Shihab said: Abu Salamah bin `Abdur-Rahman said: Some people from Quraish went to Abu Bakr and said, “Have you heard what your companion is saying He is claiming that he went to Bayt Al-Maqdis and came back to Makkah in one night!” Abu Bakr said, “Did he say that?” They said, “Yes.” Abu Bakr said, “Then I bear witness that if he said that, he is speaking the truth.” They said, “You believe that he went to Ash-Sham [Greater Syria] in one night and came back to Makkah before morning” He said, “Yes, I believe him with regard to something even more than that. I believe him with regard to the revelation that comes to him from heaven.” Abu Salamah said, from then on Abu Bakr was known as As-Siddiq (the true believer). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

        And:

        I remember being in Al-Hijr, and the Quraysh were asking me about my Night Journey. They asked me things about Bayt Al-Maqdis that I was not sure of, and I felt more anxious and stressed then than I have ever felt. Then Allah raised up Bayt Al-Maqdis for me to see, and there was nothing they asked me about but I told them about it. And I remember being in a gathering of the Prophets. Musa was standing there praying, and he was a man with curly hair, as if he were one of the men of Shanu’ah. I saw ‘Isa ibn Maryam standing there praying, and the one who most resembles him is ‘Urwah bin Mas’ud Ath-Thaqafi. And I saw Ibrahim standing there praying, and for the one who most resembles him is your companion (meaning himself). Then the time for prayer came, and I led them in prayer. When I finished, a voice said, ‘O Muhammad, this is Malik, the keeper of Hell,’ so I turned to him, and he greeted me first. (Ibid.)

        Finally,

        “… The truth is that the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey when he was awake, not in a dream, and he went from Makkah to Bayt Al-Maqdis riding on Al-Buraq. When he reached THE DOOR OF THE SANCTUARY, he tied up his animal by THE DOOR AND ENTERED, where he prayed two Rakahs to ‘greet the Masjid’…

        “Then he came back down to Bayt Al-Maqdis, and the Prophets came down with him and he led them in prayer there when the time for prayer came. Some claim that he led them in prayer in heaven, but the reports seem to say that it was in Bayt Al-Maqdis. In some reports it says that it happened when he first ENTERED…

        “Then he came OUT OF BAYT AL-MAQDIS and rode on Al-Buraq back to Makkah in the darkness of the night. As for his being presented with the vessels containing milk and honey, or milk and wine, or milk and water, or all of these, some reports say that this happened in Bayt Al-Maqdis, and others say that it happened in the heavens. It is possible that it happened in BOTH places, because it is like offering food or drink to a guest when he arrives, and Allah knows best.” (Ibid., capital emphasis mine)

        The problem with these fables is that the first Temple was built by Solomon and subsequently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian armies in 586 BC. Furthermore, general Titus and his Roman soldiers leveled the Second Temple in AD. 70, more than five centuries before this alleged night journey to Jerusalem took place. Moreover, the place that was eventually called Masjid al-Aqsa did not come into existence until AD. 690-691 when ‘Abd al-Malik bin Marwan built it (or, as some believe, reconstructed and expanded it). As the late Muslim translator and commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali states in his footnote 2168,

        The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history. (Ali, The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (English and Arabic Edition) [Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Elmhurst NY: Hardcover Edition, January, 1987] p. 693)

        In other words, THERE WAS NO TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM WHEN THIS ALLEGED JOURNEY TOOK PLACE!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken, quranandbible.blog’s woes are just starting. Since he is basically arguing like a Quran only Muslim in order to avoid dealing with the gross historical blunder of Q. 17:1, I will therefore show you what happens to folk like him who throw their Islamic sources under the bus in order to salvage their “holy” book.

        The Quran claims to be a scripture whose verses are fully detail

        A Book where of the Verses are explained in detail; A Qur’an in Arabic for people who know. S. 41:3 Hilali-Khan

        A Book, the verses of which have been expounded in detail and which will be repeatedly read, couched in clear, eloquent language, for a people who have knowledge, Sher Ali

        A scripture whose verses provide the complete details, in an Arabic Quran, for people who know. Rashad Khalifa

        However a careful examination of this very text shows that such is not the case since the Islamic writ fails to provide adequate information and details to help us understand what or who this verse is actually referring to/saying. Pay attention to what the passage says:

        Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa), whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). S. 17:1

        Here are some of the many problems which this passage raises against the Quran’s assertion that its verses are fully detailed.

        The verse fails to identify who this servant is. Is this referring to Muhammad or to Moses who is actually mentioned later on in the context? Or is it referring to some other messenger or prophet?

        In fact, how do we even know that the servant in question was actually a prophet or messenger? Perhaps he was devout believer who saw a vision or dream.

        Where exactly are these mosques located? Where can we find Masjid al-Aqsa? Where is the exact location of the Sacred Mosque?

        Can any Muslim answer these questions from the text of the Quran alone? If they are incapable of doing so wouldn’t this falsify the Quran’s assertion that all of its verses are fully detailed?

        In light of this, my challenge to quranandbible.blog and his fellow Muslims is very simple. We want him to prove that the Quran is correct in claiming that its verses are fully detailed by using only the Islamic writ to answer all of the above questions. If he appeals to other sources then he will only be proving that the Quran is mistaken since it does not provide a thoroughly adequate explanation for all of its passages.

        He and the rest know he cannot do so. Therefore, he is stuck with appealing to the Muslim sources to make sense out of this incoherent, unintelligible text. However, this is where his nightmare begins. These are the very sources that actually prove that the Quran is grossly mistaken and that Muhammad was a false prophet who deceived people by his false dreams and visions, which he claimed were from God, since these are the sources that say that masjid al-aqsa IS NOT A PLACE, BUT AN ACTUAL BUILDING, NAMELY THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON, WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THAT TIME!

        So Ken your friend here has a problem, one that he has no consistent or honest solution for. Like I said, don’t waste your time with him anymore, and engage only the honest and serious Muslims on this blog.

        Liked by 2 people

    • This is irrelevant, and if anything, only proves my point further. Christians had to keep getting CREATIVE when previous interpretations did not pan out.

      Furthermore, Sophronius must have been steaming with anger when Omar (ra) allowed the Jews to resettle in Jerusalem for the first time in almost 500 years (not including the brief period in the early 600s when the Persians conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines).

      As Stew pointed out, the Christians had occupied the Holy Land for centuries and did nothing with it. If there was an “abomination that causes desolation” (again, Stew rightly points out that this was referring to pagan altars that had been set-up first during the Seleucid occupation and then the Roman occupation), it would have the abhorrent state that the Christians had kept the land in, reducing the former temple grounds to a garbage dump.

      Liked by 2 people

      • the abomination of Desolations:

        Daniel 11:31 is about Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BC –

        He desecrated the temple by offering a pig to an idol to Zeus, but he did not destroy the temple – it was not “desolate”.

        This was a symbol of the future.

        Daniel 9:27 is about Titus in 70 AD, who destroyed the temple, which Jesus said and made clear in Matthew 24:15.

        Like

      • Actually, Daniel 9:27 also refers to Antiochus, as it aligns perfectly with what happened during the Seleucid occupation. In my article on Daniel, I quoted the late Raymond Hammer, who explained the clear parallels between Daniel 9 and Antiochus:

        “…the final week (i.e. seven years) is the crucial period, starting with the murder of Onias III, the high priest (described as the removal of ‘one who is anointed’ in verse 26) in 171 B.C. Halfway through this period has occurred the desecration of the temple, when Antiochus ‘put a stop to sacrifice and offering’ (verse 27).””

        Also, as I showed on a different thread, Daniel 11-12 contain a false prophecy. You admit that Daniel 11 refers to Antiochus. But according to chapter 12, the end was supposed to come after Antiochus’ death. The dead were supposed to rise for judgment. None of this happened.

        Like

  19. @ QB

    Oh its just annoying the new forced interpretations they are giving now that Muslims came on the scene and slapped both the Roman and Persian empires out of existence. Historically Christians did not care about the Temple when they had control of it and now that Zionist started propagating their beluefs now all of the sudden it matters again and Jesus(as) allegedly foretold that Muslims are the “abomination”. Its annoying and twisting the text.

    Like

  20. Historically Christians did not care about the Temple . . .

    It was not there at all since 70 AD. Remember the pagan Romans were in control of the area until 380-392 AD and beyond. The “wailing wall” (the western wall that Jews pray at) is not the same thing as the temple buildings. Jesus said the buildings on top would be torn down, but He did not say the walls would be torn down. (Matthew 24:1-4)

    But the empty tomb of Christ was nearby, and it became eventually over time a shrine and place for pilgrimage and the hill was excavated and eventually the church of the Holy Sepulchre was built there.

    The reality was that the Christians, after becoming more dominant in the culture after Constantine, etc. (after 312 AD forward) probably thought the nearby tomb of Christ was more important and a symbol of the final sacrifice and testimony that there is no more temple.

    see the diagrams here that explain:
    (follow the links also – lots of good information)

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/empty-tomb/

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Christians did not care about the temple or the site of the temple. If they did, they would not have left it as a garbage dump.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken

      Thank you for the link. The only issue I have with what your saying is to the best of my knowledge the locations of Golgotha and the Tomb are disputed.

      (33) A place called Golgotha.—The other Gospels give the name with the definite article, as though it were a well-known locality. It is not mentioned, however, by any Jewish writer, and its position is matter of conjecture. It was “nigh unto the city” (John 19:20), and therefore outside the walls (comp. Hebrews 13:12). There was a garden in it (John 19:41)), and in the garden a tomb, which was the property of Joseph of Arimathæa (Matthew 27:60). A tradition, traceable to the fourth century, has identified the spot with the building known as the Church of the Sepulchre. One eminent archaeologist of our own time (Mr. James Fergusson) identifies it with the Dome of the Rock in the Mosque of El Aksa. Both sites were then outside the city, but were afterwards enclosed by the third wall, built by Agrippa II. The name has been supposed by some to point to its being a common place of execution; but it is not probable that the skulls of criminals would have been left unburied, nor that a wealthy Jew should have chosen such a spot for a garden and a burial-place. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

      So Masjid Al Aqsa is possibly the site. (Note Muhammad(saw) was taken up to the heavens here and it appears Jesus(as) as well when they attempted to crucify him so further proof for our side but that’s outside the discussion)

      And here are the two locations for the tomb
      https://bibleroads.com/debate-jesus-burial-resurrection-site-holy-sepulchre-garden-tomb/

      So how can you say that the tomb is venerated as the new Temple especially in light of Ezekial who appears to be talking literally?

      Like

      • I did not say or write that the empty tomb has become the new Temple, rather, this is what I wrote:

        “The reality was that the Christians, after becoming more dominant in the culture after Constantine, etc. (after 312 AD forward) probably thought the nearby tomb of Christ was more important and a symbol of the final sacrifice and testimony that there is no more temple.”

        It was a testimony that Jesus is the final sacrifice and there is no more need for any temple. The empty space of where the temple was before also testified of that.

        Like

      • And Ezekiel contradicts this assessment and proves that Christianity cannot possibly be true. A house divided against itself cannot stand. So whatever the Christians believed is irrelevant. The text of Ezekiel makes it clear that the literal temple was supposed to be rebuilt and last forever.

        Like

      • Many Christians still believe in a future temple, in Jerusalem, with literal animal sacrifices that are memorial sacrifices, looking back to Messiah; in order for the details of Ezekiel to be fulfilled. They are called Pre-Millennial Pre-tribulationists. (rapture happens before the Tribulation, a seven year period of tribulation poured out on Israel (again !) and then 2nd coming of Christ takes place before a literal Millennium of 1000 years on earth happens, then final Judgment day. (Revelation 20-21) (look it up to get a better understanding of them, if you want) I don’t buy it; because of Hebrews and the way the gospel of John, and book of Revelation uses Ezekiel.

        Like

      • It doesn’t matter what Christians believe. Let the text speak for itself.

        If the temple sacrifices will still be needed, then there is no need for Jesus’ alleged “sacrifice” and hence no need for Christianity. Ezekiel completely refutes Christianity.

        Like

      • Read “End-Times Fiction” by Gary DeMar

        Like

      • But there was a literal temple after Ezekiel’s book was written and after he prophesied – the 2nd temple under Ezra, Zerubabbel, and Nehemiah, but God is showing that is not the ultimate truth – the ultimate truth is to what the temple sacrifices pointed to – Christ the final sacrifice.
        book of Hebrews, Gospel of John, Revelation, rest of NT give us the proper understanding that the prophesy of Ezekiel was fulfilled symbolically and metaphorically.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Okay I understand your point now. So Christians don’t care about the Temple anymore and it should remain in the Muslims hands because we do. Thanks Ken for the explanation.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. No; Jesus also proved that Daniel 9:27 was about 70 AD, since He told us that in Matthew 24:15

    Like

    • Another circular argument. Matthew was wrong. If Jesus really said that, then he was wrong. But I don’t think he said that. It was a reflection of the early church’s beliefs.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Matthew is right and you are wrong. You are anachronistic, your religion coming 600 years too late.

        Like

      • Jesus said it and was correct and Matthew recorded it and is right.

        Like

      • Settle down Ken. No, Matthew is wrong, as we have seen the evidence. I have shown evidence. What have you shown except for circular arguments?

        Like

      • “Matthew is right and you are wrong. You are anachronistic, your religion coming 600 years too late.”

        Christianity came after Daniel and Ezekiel. Therefore, using your argument, it is anachronistic because it is too late.

        Of course, that is silly argument. The better argument is to simply test the Christian interpretation by looking directly at the text. What does the text say? Both Daniel and Ezekiel destroy the Christian religion because they both say things that contradict Christianity.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. Isn’t it amazing that Ken has to ignore the clear text of Ezekiel and has to quote other books to interpret Ezekiel for him? Why not let Ezekiel speak for itself? Why did the text refer to a literal building, using language that can only be used in that context? If the text was referring to some weird “bodily” temple of some mangod, then why not just say it? Why are Christians so dishonest? It both boggles and amazes the mind to see wanton dishonesty.

    Like

    • Because Jesus and John give us the right interpretation of Ezekiel in the first century.

      Gospel according to John

      Book of Revealtion

      rest of NT – gives the proper understanding of what Ezekiel was referring to.

      Like

    • More circular arguments. You have not presented one IOTA of evidence for any of these so-called “interpretations”. Why should anyone accept the NT’s interpretation when the text of Ezekiel CLEARLY refers to a LITERAL building?

      Why does Ezekiel refer to the temple sacrifices? Why does it say that the uncircumcised gentiles would not be allowed on the temple grounds? Why does it give DETAILED instructions on the dimensions of the temple? Why does it describe the priests’ room? The altar? How do these details fit in with the Christian interpretation that it was all really talking about Jesus?

      Again, it just boggles and amazes the mind to see such wanton dishonesty. I really have trouble wrapping my head around it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Why does Ezekiel refer to the temple sacrifices?

        Because he is writing when the first temple (of Solomon) is destroyed (during the 70 year exile, around 593-571 AD) and giving hope for a new temple, which they DID rebuild Later after they returned to the land – under Ezra and Nehemiah (539-430 AD) and then later Herod expanded the temple – they used it during those years and centuries until 70 AD.

        Like

      • But you just said he was referring to a “bodily” to temple represented in Jesus. Make up your mind.

        Like

      • Both; with Jesus as the final fulfillment.
        Ezekiel was giving hope for the future and writing for the time in language they could understand.

        Like

      • That’s a copout. Ezekiel could have easily been clear that there wasn’t going to be a literal temple but a “bodily” one. Instead, he went into great detail about the measurements of the temple. This shows that the Christian interpretation makes absolutely no sense and is really the result of a deliberate twisting of the text.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The New Testament authoritatively tells us the proper interpretation of the OT.

        Like

      • Again, another circular argument.

        Like

      • The “proper” interpretation is that a literal temple was meant. Christians know what this means so they have to invent some other interpretation, which is not supported by the text and relies on cherry-picked and isolated verses.

        Liked by 2 people

  23. Sam (answeringislamblog) really provided lots of evidence that the author of the Qur’an was ignorant of what was going on in history (comments above from Islamic sources regarding the Al Aqsa Masjid in Jerusalem and Surah 17:1).

    Faiz’s (quranandbibleblog) arguments got nuked.

    The author of the Qur’an could not have been inspired by God at all, as it makes so many errors.

    Like

  24. answeringislamblog wrote:

    “The Apostle of Allah said to Gabriel; O Gabriel! my people will not confirm it. He said: Abu Bakr will testify to it; and he is al-Siddiq. The narrator added: Many people who had embraced Islam and offered prayers went astray. (The Prophet continued,) I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said: HOW MANY DOORS ARE THERE IN THAT MOSQUE? I HAD NOT COUNTED THEM SO I BEGAN TO LOOK AT IT AND COUNTED THEM ONE BY ONE AND GAVE THEM INFORMATION CONCERNING THEM. I also gave information about their caravan which was on the way and its signs. They found them as I had related. Allah, the Almighty, the Great, revealed: “We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind”. He (Ibn Sa’d) said: It refers to the vision of the eye which he saw with the eye. (Ibn Sa’ad, Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India], Volume I, pp. 246-248; bold and capital emphasis ours)”

    Faiz’s (quranandbibleblog) argument nuked.

    Like

  25. answeringislamblog wrote:

    The problem with these fables is that the first Temple was built by Solomon and subsequently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian armies in 586 BC. Furthermore, general Titus and his Roman soldiers leveled the Second Temple in AD. 70, more than five centuries before this alleged night journey to Jerusalem took place. Moreover, the place that was eventually called Masjid al-Aqsa did not come into existence until AD. 690-691 when ‘Abd al-Malik bin Marwan built it (or, as some believe, reconstructed and expanded it). As the late Muslim translator and commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali states in his footnote 2168,

    The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history. (Ali, The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (English and Arabic Edition) [Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Elmhurst NY: Hardcover Edition, January, 1987] p. 693)

    In other words, THERE WAS NO TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM WHEN THIS ALLEGED JOURNEY TOOK PLACE!

    quranandbibleblog’s arguments nuked.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Open Letters and Silence on Sharia – Coalition of the Brave
  2. Al-Isra and the “Temple” in the Islamic Sources: A Response to Sam Shamoun – The Quran and Bible Blog
  3. Feature Article: Al-Isra and the “Temple” in the Islamic Sources – A Response to Sam Shamoun – Blogging Theology

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: