Say, “O People of the Book! Let us come to common terms: that we will worship none but Allah, associate none with Him, nor take one another as lords instead of Allah.” But if they turn away, then say, “Bear witness that we are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:64)
﷽
The Eastern Orthodox are a type of hydra where their views on Islam depend on the geo-political climate. insh’Allah we will come to this later.
The global Eastern Orthodox Church is organized into 14 universally or widely recognized self-governing (autocephalous) regional churches. Listed in traditional order of seniority (the diptychs), they include nine traditional patriarchates, the Georgian catholicosate, and five autocephalous national or regional churches. The 15th and 16th churches are a matter of internal dispute among the Eastern Orthodox Church.
1. His Holiness Patariach Bartholomew of The Church of Istanbul. (Turkey)
As he is called, ‘The first among equals’ Patriarch Bartholomew is the Patriarch of Istanbul. He oversees the community of Orthodox Christians in Turkey. However, his title within his circle is Patriarch of Constantinople.
It has come to our attention is that his holiness Patriarch Bartholomew has recently claimed that ‘At the cewntre lies the Sacred itself, the ultimate, absolute reality, which is expressed in various ways, as God, Allah,
There is also an eye opening quote from an early Church Father that is worthy of a repost here:
“As the Great Cappadocian Father of the Church, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, teaches, it is impossible for anyone to ascend to that height where the light of truth is seen, unless the dead and earthly garment of skins is stripped away from the foundations of the soul… This is truly that which really exists, and the understanding of this is the knowledge of truth.”
as well as:
“The loss of the relationship with the Sacred translates into a loss of the bonds that constitute society, leaving behind it a sum of individuals in competition.”
2. Theodoros II, the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa. (Egypt)
The Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria has said:
“The Orthodox and Muslims are “brothers under the same sky,” «είμαστε αδέλφια κάτω από τον ίδιο τον ουρανό»
3. Patriarch John X Yazigi, whom is called Patriarch of Antioch and All the East. (Syria)
In a meeting with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch John X Yazigi, Syrian President Ahmad Al-Sharaa was presented with a copy of the “Ashtiname of Muhammed”, a document said to be written by Ali ibn Abi Talib in 632 CE on behalf of Prophet Muhammed (saw), which pledges protection for the Christians of the time.
The meeting between the leaders took place in Damascus on Sunday 26 October.
Patriarch Jonhn X Yazigi the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East has said this about Muslims.
“To start, we would like to direct our warmest greetings to the Syrian people as a whole and our Muslim brothers in particular on the occasion of Eid el-Adha. Many happy returns..”
“We as Christians live beside our Muslim brothers in these lands. Nothing separates us from them.”
“When the late Fares al-Khoury was asked about “the protection of Christians”, he quickly took to the pulpit of the Umayyad Mosque and said, “As a Christian member of parliament, I reject French or English protection and I ask the protection of my brothers who are praying with me in this mosque.” This is our history and this is what we continue to affirm always. There are many people with other goals who are trying to spread other ideas, but adversity brings forth real men and we are not afraid.”
4. Patriarch Theophilos iii of Jerusalem and all holy lands. (Palestine)
“He stressed his condemnation of insulting the Islamic faith with the same vigor of condemnation as he would if the insult afflicted any of the other monotheistic religions.”
“Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem – Chairman of the Council of Heads of Churches of the Holy Land, denounced the unfortunate sequence of events in France, which started with insults to Islam and the honorable Prophet Muhammed, and was followed by a murder crime of a teacher on the hands of three students as a retaliation for the insults , which triggered a series of unfortunate crimes that targeted innocent Muslim civilians.”
5. Patriarch Kirill (Cyril) of Moscow and all Rus’. (Russia).
The respected and honourable Patriarch Cyril has said:
“поэтому всего сердца молитесь просите У Господа помощи Я знаю что здесь и христиане и мусульмане каждый обращается к одному и тому же Богу творцу и вот в ответ на это мы получаем реальную Божью помощь.” This is translated as:
“Therefore, pray with all your heart, ask the Lord for help. I know that here there are both Christians and Muslims. Each turns to the same God, the Creator. And in response to this, we receive real help from God.”- Patriarch Cyril of Moscow and all Rus.
6. Patriarch Porfirije. Patriarch of Serbia. (Serbia)
Patriarch Porfirije of the Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarch Porfirije congratulates Muslims on Kurban Bayram(Eid Al Dha). He says:
“On the occasion of the forthcoming Kurban Bayram, We extend Our most sincere congratulations to all faithful of the Islamic religion, with cordial wishes that the All-Merciful Creator may grant them blessing and spiritual strength, and that they may celebrate this great feast with their loved ones in peace, health, and prosperity. May the days of Kurban Bayram, inspired by the steadfast faith of the forefather Abraham, strengthen faith in God and be filled with understanding and mutual respect, in the spirit of the exalted traditional values that this feast embodies.”
7. Patriarch Daniel . The Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church. (Romania)
When receiving a diplomat from Iran the Patriarch pointed out that onyx imported from the Islamic Republic of Iran was used in the arches of the iconostasis doors of the National Cathedral. He maintains cordial relations with Muslims.
9. Patriarch Shio III born Elizbar Mujiri head of the Georgian Orthodox Church (Georgia)
He has only recently been elected. He will most likely follow diplomatic protocol of those who came before him. His huge concern seems to be the rise of abortion and lgbtq activism in Georgia.
10. Archbishop of Nova Justiniana and All Cyprus.
One can say that his attitude towards Islam and Muslims is hostile. This is primarily coloured by the disputes between Turkey and Greece over Cyprus.
11. Archbishop Ieronymos II. Archbishop of Athens and All Greece. (Greece).
His view and position is notably hostile towards Islam and Muslims.
Here is a video of his statements:
12. Archbishop Sawa Archbishop of Warsaw and Metropolitan all of Poland. (Poland)
To our knowledge there really is no negative or positive statement towards Islam and/or Muslims. Muslims are an extreme minority in Poland. Poland for the most part is a homogenous society with the exception of being divided among Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.
13. Joani (Joan), Archbishop of Tirana, Durrës and All Albania, Exarch of Illyricum. (Albania)
It is claimed that he was born into a non-practicing Bektashi “Muslim” family (a Sufi Islamic order prominent in Albania) under the country’s strict communist regime, before secretly converting and baptizing into Christianity in 1979. We use “Muslim” as we do not recognize the terminology of non-practicing Muslim. The term is an oxymoron. We want to draw attention to this. He was brought up in a secular household with secular values that had cultural attachments to Islam.
Nonetheless he has maintained cordial relations with the Muslim community. Congraulating the believers on the occasion of Eid al Fitr.
14. Rastislav Archbishop of Prešov, Metropolitan of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. (Czech Republic and the Republic of Slovakia).
To our knowledge there really is no negative or positive statement towards Islam and/or Muslims. To our knowledge the Muslim communities in the Czech Republic and Slovakia are quite small. They are mostly homogenous socities. The bigger divide being between Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox.
15. This one we really cannot grant because the Eastern Orthodox Church has not been guided by the Holy Spirit in this matter. They have no consensus on either the status of the The OCA (Orthodox Church in America), as being self governing or a branch of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The OCU (Orthodox Church of Ukraine) is also one disputed in general.
So the Eastern Orthodox Church has not reached a consensus on the recognition of either as being a
It is divided on rather or not the OCA or OCU can be universally counted as the 15th autocephalous church.
Recall our statement: The Eastern Orthodox are a type of hydra where their views on Islam depend on the geo-political climate.
This is true. Those churches who live under the authority of Muslim majority governments, or have family members who have married among the Muslims have positions that are more cordial.
The history of the Ottoman empire invites different responses as we saw from the Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek and Cyprus churches.
Accordingly, the Patariach Bartholomew of The Church of Istanbul as well as Patriarch Kirill (Cyril) of Moscow and all Rus’ have all but confirmed that the Allah of Islam is the same God that Christians worship.
Eastern Orthodox laity and catechumen should be very careful to watch their words concerning Allah (swt). Until their is a council that is convened and the 14 churches come to an agreement on thier position in regard to Allah (swt) it cannot be said that the Eastern Orthodox Church has an ‘offical position’ for or against.
What would be akward however, is that Eastern Orthodox Christians in Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey and other places very often use the word Allah in their liturgy and day to day worship.
“Have they not travelled throughout the land so their hearts may reason, and their ears may listen? Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the chests that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
“When they listen to what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears for recognizing the truth. They say, “Our Lord! We believe, so count us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
[Click on the image above. Tthen right click that image and select open image in new tab. Ctrl and mouse wheel or Ctrl and +,- to zoom in/out.] Voila!
May Allah (swt) guide the sincere Christians to the truth and save them form the torment of the hellfire.
And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women-if you doubt, then their period is three months, and those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah-He will make for him of this matter ease.” (Qur’an 65:4)
“Test the orphans, until they reach balaghu; then, if you perceive in them the right judgment, deliver to them their property; consume it not wastefully and hastily ere they are grown. If any man is rich, let him be abstinent; if poor, let him consume in reason. And when you deliver their property to them, take witnesses over them; Allah suffices for a reckoner.”(Qur’an 4:6)
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)
﷽
A very interesting exchange happened recently between leading Roman Catholic apologist, Trent Horn and Protestant that believes in a 66 book canon, Kelly Powers.
Trent Horn got the Protestant to admit:
“ But is there a verse that directly says a 30-year-old can’t marry? There’s no verse that says that. But our conscience, your conscience knows that’s wrong.” -Kelly Powers.
The basis for a 30 year old not marrying a 10 year old is one’s conscience in the year 2026. Not a universal moral law for all times and places but a person living in 2026.
The key take away is that there is no clear biblical text that gives the age for marriage.
@17:32 minutes: “What was a couple examples? One of them was, “Well, can can a can a Christian can a person marry their first cousin?” Now, off the top of my head, when you’re doing something live, many of you probably have done, you know, if you do a live stream, sometimes you don’t remember something right off the cuff, right? I mean, if I asked all of you out there, where where is the scripture that says directly that you are to be marrying your close relatives? Some of you might get it right off the cuff. Some of you might have to go Google it, right? I forgot about Leviticus 18. I forgot about Leviticus chapter 20 that actually addresses that you are instructed not to marry your close relatives. Well, that would also include your cousins. That’s relatives, right? So, this is what you know the Bible does talk about that, right? Now, the issue of a 30year-old marrying a 10year-old, right? Well, if you look historically, even you going back to around the 12th century or so or early back in the day, the Roman Catholic Church actually approved of children who were 12 years girls and 14 years of age boys that were actually being married back in those days as early as young as 12. Right? So even the Catholic Church historically has given um the acceptance of young children being married at a certain age, right? But now is this morally acceptable? Right? Like in our day and age, you look historically with culture thousands of years ago, different ages, different people would be married, younger ages, right? But we live in a very different society today, right? We also got to follow what the government according what uh Romans 13 also instructs for us today.” -Kelly Powers.
@2:03:36 minutes: “I did not expect the conversation to go the way that it really did. I didn’t expect I expected Trent to come to defend his views of what he believed and what he has said, but I didn’t expect the disrespect for the authority of the word of God. I didn’t expect the attacks on Sola Scriptura and he was using these shock questions to try to attack Sola Scriptura and I addressed those questions earlier. About you know, what can you be married to your your first cousin and the bible says no. Uh Leviticus 18 Leviticus 20 actually warns about that; so that’s the answer is no. What about the issue of marrying ya know a 10-year-old can a 30year-old year-old marry a 10-year-old, right? And I said, well, my conscience, right, would say no, right? But he’s like, well, what what about the age? Who who are we to say? Right? And what I highlighted earlier is if you look, you can just do a Google search on this. I don’t want to, you know, waste. You can do your grok chat GPT, Google search, whatever. thousand plus years ago, thousand something years ago, 1,200 something AD, the Catholic Church actually approved of girls at the age of 12 being married to 14year-old boys? That was okay. Right? Now, the question is, well, could a 12-year-old be married to a 30-year-old? Well, what’s the difference? Right? So culturally we see historically different cultures have different ages throughout time. Governments impose their laws. We also have to render to Caesar what’s Caesar’s as well. Right? But is there a verse that directly says a 30-year-old can’t marry? There’s no verse that says that. But our conscience, your conscience knows that’s wrong.” -Kelly Powers.
This was the exchange between Trent Horn and Kelly Powers here:
@44:05 minutes:
Trent Horn: Where does the Bible say?
Kelly Powers: It doesn’t say. We’ve already went round and round on this, Trent. We’ve already went over this.
Trent Horn: So, some things are gravely sinful that aren’t in the Bible.
Kelly Powers: There’s some things that our conscience will tell us, yes, that are not right. That God has given us a conscience, right? Obviously, a 10-year-old is a child. Number one, a 10-year-old can’t produce proper babies. Number two,
Trent Horn: I said precocious puberty.
Kelly Powers: So you’re making a false excuse to try to justify your means there. Point here is we know adults get married when they’re adults, right? That’s how it normally works.
Trent Horn: Can a 16 year old get married?
Kelly Powers: So you’ve been not able to prove your assertion. Number two, you can’t prove this is a sin. And number three, you’re still justifying your language. And then you smile about it, which is hilarious.
Trent Horn: Language. What inappropriate language did I use? I asked about a particular act, a particular kind of marriage. And I just wanted you to tell me if it was sinful. You said it is sinful. I agree with you.But the problem is,
Kelly Powers: What did I say was sinful?
Trent Horn: Being married to a 10-year-old. You said that was sinful.
Kelly Powers: Okay. To be clear, yeah, I don’t think that would be right. Correct. That’s my problem. I don’t see any chapter and verse. I don’t believe that would be appropriate. Yes.
Trent Horn: And you believe, well, look, God told me in my conscience this is wrong, and that’s why you believe it’s wrong.
Kelly Powers: Well, when I look at scripture, it talks about a husband and wife being one. They leave their father and mother. There’s a certain kind of guidelines that give this indication that they’re going to be a young adult, not a child.
Trent Horn: Okay. So, could it be a 14-year-old wife,
Kelly Powers: Like Mary when she was young? Is that what you’re trying to say?
Trent Horn: Yeah, sure. 13 or 14.
Kelly Powers:Sure.
Trent Horn: How about 12?
Kelly Powers: Again, come on, Trent.
Trent Horn: 12. Just a 12-year-old.
Kelly Powers: We’ve already went through that. I don’t know the actual age, but we’re talking a young adult, not a child, right?
Trent Horn: You’re saying where does the Bible say all this stuff? This is just your opinion.
Kelly Powers: Of course. Now, well, not necessarily. According to, if I understand correctly, Jewish culture and law, a young man is at the age of 13 or 14, right? When does a woman become a young woman?
Trent Horn: I don’t know. It probably changes.
Kelly Powers: I believe around the age of 14 as well. This is going by memory.
Prima Qur’an comments: Dear brothers and sisters do you know how revealing all of this is? Christians are also having a meltdown over this. What Trent Horn said is correct. He knows that the Bible gives no explicit text stating the correct age (number of solar rotations) to get married. Kelly Powers has argued with many opposing Christian groups. You saw clear as day he did not run to a particular verse. He even agreed with Trent who posed: “13 or 14” to which Kelly replied: “Sure”.
It was only when Trent pressed further with the age of 12 that Kelly somehow felt that went to far. But by what measure? Even if he (Kelly Powers) argues that he finds it an objection in his conscience. So what about 1 day shy of 13?
See how arbitrary this is.
In fact, one Christian who had a melt down had to do a three hour video in response to it! Clean up on Aisle 9.
For those interested you may wish to see our other articles here:
“You are the best nation that ever existed among humanity. You command people to good and prohibit them from evil, and you believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book accepted the faith (Islam), it would certainly have been better for them. Some of them have faith, but most of them are evil doers.” (Qur’an 3:110)
﷽
Christians are in full on metldown over Islam.
On the one hand we keep hearing about this mass apostasy from Islam. They feel if they keep telling themselves that or keep saying it that it somehow becomes a reality.
These are the same Christians that tell your average every day American and Englishman that those 2% of Muslims in the U.S are somehow going to force Shariah law upon the 98% of the U.S.
Mind you that 23% of the United States 330 million population are evangelical Christians and they have yet to implement theonomy. Yet, somehow those 2% of Muslims are going to force shariah law upon the American population.
Even though the Christianity Today article mentions that Burkina Faso, a population with 65% of Muslims is not going to be implementing Shariah law.
Here is a map of Burkina Faso. (Highlighted in Red).
So which is it honey child? Are Muslims all over the world leaving Islam in mass or are the 2% of Muslims in the United States and the 6% in the United Kingdom going to enforce Shariah law upon everyone?
Every small town in the United States has no less than 50 different Christian denominations all arguing over thier particular flavour of Christianity. Yet, somehow they (these Christians) think that Muslims are all united, on the same page, have the same goals and idealogical bent?
Just look at the Islamic Republican of Iran. Where they have totally crushed their entire Christian population!!
Or have they?
Below is the Saint Sarkis Cathedral of the Armenian Orthodox Church. Pictured below is a recent mass.
That is unless Trump and the U.S intelligence and Elon Musk are all lying to us about the status of these churches.
Here is the problem. While on the one hand the United States has Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and Yale. All of which have produced some brilliant ideas and brilliant minds it also has a population that believes NASA never went to the moon. A huge segment of the population really does believe that the Earth is flat. That there is an ice wall that prevents anyone from traveling beyond. That you can reach Africa from the Grand Canyon in Arizona. That the moon is hollow, or even possibly a sattelite ‘spying’ on us.
You would think that such views are held among the poorly educated. However, you may be quite suprised to find well educated and articulate U.S Americans holdings such views and things even more extreme.
This is what the Muslim is dealing with.
Muslims are just not assimiliating!
Caucasians of European descent can celebrate their heritage days. However, when Shi’i Muslims remember Karbala or African Americans want to celebrate Kwanza we start talking about assimilation.
So we can have St. Patrick’s Day (March 17th) and have massive parades in cities like New York and Boston. The Midwest can have their Octoberfest (September-October) which is rooted in Bavarian tradition. We can have Mardis Gras (Shrove Tuesday/Feb-Mar) which was brought by French settlers and celebrated in New Orleans, Louisiana and Mobile Alabama. We can have Colombus Day/Italian Heritage Day (October) which marks Italian-American culture and has parades in New York. We can have Lief Erikson Day (Ocotber 9th) which celebrates Noridic American heritage and European exploration of North America. You can attend the Polish Fest in Milwaukee) Wisconsin which is held annually in June at Henry Maier Festival Park and all of that is fine.
The people who talk about assimilation wear T-shirts of the American flag complete with hot dog juice and mustard stains and wear the American flag like a cape.
Imagine the cognitive dissonance of a Christian who post a picture of a woman in a bikini eating a hot dog (presumably pork) with the caption. “Islam hates this.”
Did Jesus love pork?
Did Jesus love scantly clad women?
Christian apologetic/polemic scene.
The Christian apolgetic/polemic scene is in absolute disarray. They have thrown everything they have had Islam and Muslims and nothing seems to stick.
Trying to prove that Christianity which came 700 years before Islam is historically more verifable then a religion (Islam) that came 700 years after it.
This type of attack usually focuses on trying to show the disconnect between the Hebrew Scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament and the narratives found in the Qur’an.
The Assumption is that the Old Testament which was compiled and edited and redacted during the The Babylonian Exile (6th Century BCE) -600 years before the advent of Jesus, and gives us information about Moses who came approximately 1,300 years before Jesus is an accurate recollection and account of the past events.
The Old Testament also frequently gives information about events which it could not have been witness to, or in which there were no eye witnesses. Examples being the narrative about the garden of Eden. Hence, the information has to come from what is claimed to be revelation.
In fact, reflect on the following information:
The history of the Old Testament
“The first five books of the Old Testament are the foundations of the Jewish faith and central to Christianity. It’s thought that the main author was Moses, a significant leader of the Jewish people who brought them out of slavery in Egypt. He wrote down the laws given to the Jewish people by God – including the Ten Commandments. A later book of the Old Testament, Joshua, refers to ‘the Book of the Law of Moses’. Other writings gathered together the oral stories passed down for centuries, which make up the first few chapters of the Bible.”
“Some of the books of the Old Testament took many years to come together because they documented events over centuries.”
This approach is most likely the brain child of Christian missionary Jay Smith.
Jay Smith after getting routinely destroyed in his debates with Shabir Ally; where Christianity and Islam were compared/contrasted, Smith decided the best thing to do was to not bring Christianity up at all!
Btw Jay Smith’s colleague is a guy named ‘Al Fadi’ who claimed he went to an Islamic University and he memorized “half the Qur’an” by age 12. The man is a total fraud. Just like Ergun Caner. A Christian apologist who was removed from Liberty University after the lies caught up to him. That man Ergun Caner unfortunately his own son committed suicide!
Christian mission tactics are extremely deceptive.
“What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice.” (Philippians 1:18)
Paul rejoices that Christ is proclaimed, regardless of the method or motive. Paul gives no moral qualification. He does not condemn the bad motives. He simply rejoices in the outcome.
In Somalia they were caught distributing books with the title ‘Al Kitab’ in Arabic and you opened it and it Al Fatiha in the first chapter followed by the rest as the Bible in Arabic!
In West Africa Masjids there were missionaries who attended Masjids with the Muslims and prayed with them! When they would get people alone and isolate them and press them on certain text of the Qur’an. Examples: Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, or Jesus making the birds out of clay. These are called ‘insider movements’.
“Secret Christians“
“C6 is the ‘secret’ or ‘underground’ group who still remain active in the life of the Muslim community. These people see themselves as Muslim followers of Isa; the local community sees them only as Muslim. It is in connection with the missiological/indigenous church practices derived from the C5/C6 end of the spectrum that the controversy gets heated! Are those individuals who make up such congregations truly converted, or are they in reality still Muslim? Now, we must be careful how from a safe, comfortable Western perspective we critique C5/C6 followers of Jesus. In many Islamic countries and communities, confessing faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Saviour can result in severe persecution — the loss of educational privileges, occupation, family and even life. We perhaps need also to keep in mind Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea! An even more extreme application of the C6 principle is known as the ‘Insider Movement’. The Insider Movement encourages Muslims who have ‘accepted’ Jesus to stay within their Muslim family and communities.”
You even have the ‘honey trap’ Christians active in Indonesia where they talk to women online and try to get compromosing photos of said individuals and then use manipulative tactics to get these women to convert to Christianity! Truly disgusting.
Even you can frequently see Christian missionaries and apologist say ‘Praise Allah’ or ‘Al hamdulillah’ now of course they say such things sarcastically. However, the discerning Christian should ask themselves if Allah (swt) is really a demon as they claim why given praise to Allah sarcastically?
No Muslim is going to say All praise be to Shiva or all praise be to Baal. Even sarcastically. These are serious matters that Christians take in jest.
A famous Roman Catholic channel dropped a bombshell on his timeline. The greatest miracle of the Eastern Orthodox Church is a lie! Want to know what is exceedingly interesting about this? These same Eastern Orthodox Christians who usually come in packs anytime Eastern Othodox Christianity is challenged were quite as church mice on this particular post. The best any of them had to bring was ‘whatabouism’. But your Church (The Catholic Church) has this and this.
After the clash of historical narratives arguments the second biggest canon the Christian missionaries feel they have in their arsenal is the so called, ‘Islamic Dilemma’.
Even Christian missionary David Wood called it ‘the biggest apostasy maker‘. Now what is intersting by this statement is that David Wood did not call the so called, ‘Islamic Dilemma’ the biggest maker of Christians.
This argument was designed by Christians to take the heat of the Bible and take the conversation away from the Bible.
What is likely in this scenario is that you create an agnostic who has gone from a conservative world view to one that is very open to a very liberal world view.
As regard, the David Wood apologist a Christian magazine had the following to report about him.
The reason this information came out was not as David Wood claimed to ‘clear the air’ David Wood acted premeptively against another Christian Apologist, Hassamo ‘Sam Shamoun’ to prevent Sam from using the above information against him (David Wood).
David Wood then release a photo of Hassamo ‘Sam Shamoun’s ex-wife with a black eye. Yet, another Christian apologist website called ‘Reasoned Answers’ released the following video:
This video absolutely destroyed Shamoun’s credibility as he is caught in several contradictions.
By the way, Sam Shamoun was (not sure if he still is) one of the premier writers for answeringislam.org < the website Christians use to debunk Islam.
You have to wonder if Sam Shamoun’s ex-wife thought it was an ‘accident’ what motivated her to share a picture of herself with a black eye to David Wood?
This prompted Sam Shamoun to retaliate against ‘Reasoned Answers’ -another Christian apologist website that focuses on attacking Islam. Sam Shamoun had discovered that ‘Reasoned Answers’ has a son who identifies as a transgender. A member of the LGBTQ community.
He (Sam) also pointed out that the man behind ‘Reasoned Answers’ his own wife was involved in LGBTQ activity.
Sam who goes by the moniker ‘Bruce Lee’ @BruceSaiFun posted the following. He posted pictures of ‘Reasoned Answers’ wife -where she posted a pic of herself with breast (covered by her hair). Why anyone would post such pictures on Facebook is anyone’s guess.
Imagine! This ‘Reasoned Answers’ individual has a wife doing all this and he is calling Muslims to become Christians? No thank you.
However, look at Sam’s language. This is what Christians are calling us to.
This of course prompted ‘Reasoned Answers’ to release the following video:
In the above video ‘Reasoned Answers’ explains he is not happy with his son’s choice to be a transexual.
If you hear his explanation this is enough evidence for anyone in Muslim majority countries to NOT want their socities moddled after the the degenerate Christiain culture of the 21st century.
The one verse in the New Testament that Christians hate more than Islam.
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.” (1 John 3:9)
If you saw the way that Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestants) try and run from this verse it would leave you shocked. The point of the verse is that man is in sin and is sinful. However, once you are born of God this means you are born of the Holy Spirit.
This means that real true Christians cannot sin, not even once! But we all know how this ends up don’t we?
Atheist should become Christians to stop the tide of Islam?!
If you want anymore proof that Christianity is in full on meltdown mode watch this video insh’Allah.
Ayaan Hirsi is basically pleading to Richard Dawkins (and all Atheist and Freethinkers) basically to become ‘cultural Christians’. This may mean to do a public announcement or baptism to outwardly appease Christians. The argument that Ayaan basically gives is that there is a spiritual vaccum in Western Nations. That Islam will fill that gap. So she is making her case to Dawkins for Christianity.
What is interesting is why Ayaan thinks that Islam in particular will fill this vacuum. Not Buddhism, not New Age Spirituality, not Wicca, not Hinduism or anything else but Islam!
Ayaan is actually not trying to persuade Atheist on rather or not Islam is true but rather or not Christianity is a political necessity as a ‘bulwark’ against Islam.
That is exactly where we are. From Mark Zuckerbergs Facebook where one is hard pressed to log on and not get their timeline flooded with Anti-Islamic post; to Elon Musk, changing the algorithm on X to prevent engagement from Pro Palestine and Pro Islam post. Yet changing the algortihm to ramping up engagement on Anti-Islam post.
Christians are in full on meltdown over Islam.
They need not be. We the Muslims welcome them home. To their true home with us.
May Allah guide the Christians out of the darkness that they are in into the light of Islam.
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali.
﷽
(Pictured above is Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) in a light moment.)
The following is a transcript of the respected Shaykh, Ahmed Al Khalili (h).
“The baptism of Allah” and who is better than Allah in baptism? And we are His worshippers. There is much disagreement concerning the meaning of “ṣibghah ” here; however, we find this disagreement expressed in two main views.
The first view is held by those who say that what is meant by “ṣibghah ” here is whatAllah may He be exalted and glorified has instilled in the hearts of His believing servants of loyalty to Him, obedience to Him, faith in Him and in the prophets, faith in what was revealed to them, and action in accordance with that faith. This view indicates that Allah may He be exalted has planted the meanings of faith in the believers, and its effects have appeared in their conduct. These effects are like an outward, visible dye, by which they are distinguished from all other people.
The terms ṣibghah and ṣibgh are also used to refer to character, dispositions, and the upbringing that a father gives his children. An example is the poet’s saying: “Every people have their own dye/character, and the dye/character of Hamdan is the best of dyes; we raise our children upon that, so how excellent is our dye among dyers!” For what is meant by ṣibghah here is the psychological upbringing whose psychological effects manifest in behavior.
To this view reverts the interpretation of those who explain ṣibghah as religion, those who explain it as innate nature (fiṭrah), those who explain it as sacred law (sharī’ah), and those who explain it as the seal/stamp for those who interpret ṣibghah as the seal have understood the concept of ṣibghah in this sense.
The second view is that ṣibghah is mentioned by way of literary parallelism (mushākalah) specifically, confirmatory parallelism because some of the Jews, in ages past, used to perform a bath of repentance. This practice continued until it resulted in what came to be called baptism (ta’mīd) and the sacrament of baptism (ma’mūdiyyah) among some of the Christians. The origin of this was that when one of their priests offered a sacrifice of repentance for a sin he had committed, or for a sin committed by his household, as well as during festivals the festivals of repentance for the general sins of the Children of Israel they would bathe. They continued this practice.
It was said that when John son of Zechariah (peace be upon him) would call people to repentance and remorse, just as they used to repent, and he would command them to bathe in the Jordan River. This was called in Aramaic ma’mūdhā or ma’mūthā, meaning purification. When Jesus (peace be upon him) received the revelation, he had first bathed and washed. The Arabs rendered the word ma’mūdh as ma’mūl and derived from it the terms al-ta’mīd and al-ta’mud (baptism). Thus, one who converted to Christianity was said to have been “baptized” (ta’mada) if he performed that washing which is followed by entering Christianity. And they said of those priests of the Christians who administer this rite in bringing someone into Christianity that he “baptizes” (‘ammada) or is “a baptizer” (mu’ammid).
It was said that when severe disagreement arose between John son of Zechariah and Jesus (peace be upon them both) on one side, and the Jews on the other, the Jews abandoned this washing, so it remained among the Christians and they continued it. Some of them began baptizing their children on the seventh day, saying to the one they baptized on that day: “Today you have truly become an Israelite” that is, on the seventh day after his birth, they wash him in water. This water is kept in basins in the churches, and they claim that in this water there are remnants of the water with which Jesus (peace be upon him) bathed and which dripped from his body. Whenever the water is about to run out, they add new water to it, so that those drops which they claim remain would continue to exist in that water. This water is what is called “the water of baptism” (mā’ al-ma’mūliyyah).
Based on this based on this view the noble verse contains a parallelism, meaning: If you are immersing yourselves in this water by which you enter into your religion, or by which you bring people into your religion, or by which you bring your children into your religion, then we have been dyed with Allah’s baptism.
It is also said that this water the Jews used to call ghimās in the bath from ṣaba’a yaṣba’u meaning “to immerse” in the Hebrew language. When the Arabs Arabized that, they disliked using the root ṣ-b-‘_ because it does not convey this meaning in Arabic. So they rendered this word using the root ṣ-b-gh instead. That is why it was called ṣibgh, ṣibghah, and ṣibghah.
As for ṣibghah it is either a verbal noun indicating a state or manner, like jilsah (a sitting posture), or it is a passive participle, because the passive participle can come on the pattern fi’l and fi’lah as in ṭiḥn meaning “ground flour,” wid meaning “found,” ḥib meaning “beloved” and likewise it comes on the pattern fi’lah when one intends femininity, like ṣibghah and wishqah for something split/cracked.
There is much disagreement regarding the grammatical declension of ṣibghah here. Some say that ṣibghah is a substitute (badal) for “the religion of Abraham” (millat Ibrāhīm) so whoever reads millata Ibrāhīma in the accusative, reads ṣibghata in the accusative; and whoever reads it in the nominative, reads ṣibghatu in the nominative. Others say it is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid) that emphasizes the meaning in Allah’s saying: “Say: We believe in Allah and what was revealed to us…” i.e., faith as Allah’s baptism; this faith is the baptism. Some say it is an emphasis for the entire preceding sentence, as in Allah’s saying may He be exalted “And on that day the believers will rejoice in Allah’s help; He helps whom He wills, and He is the Mighty, the Merciful. [This is] Allah’s promise” so the verbal noun “Allah’s promise” emphasizes the entire preceding sentence, not a previously implied verbal noun. Similarly, “The baptism of Allah” “And who is better than Allah in baptism?” i.e., we are baptized/immersed in Allah’s baptism, or the religion of Abraham is Allah’s baptism, or faith is Allah’s baptism, or adherence to Allah’s baptism. “And who is better than Allah in baptism?” — i.e., who is there whose baptism is better than Allah’s baptism? The interrogative here is rhetorical, meaning negation, indicating denial.
“And we are His worshippers” i.e., we are submissive to Him, or we are obedient to Him, or we are humbly devoted to Him, or we are submissive to Him. All of this has been mentioned in the interpretation of worship (‘ibādah) and servitude (u’būdah), as previously explained in Sūrat al-Fātiḥah that it is absolute humility that emanates from the soul with a consciousness inspired by correct belief in the Creator, may He be exalted and glorified. This is the correct worship required of man.
“And we are His” i.e., for Allah alone, not for any other i.e., we do not associate any partner with Him “worshippers.” Therefore, the related element (the prepositional phrase) is placed before the predicate (‘ābidūn) to indicate exclusivity. In this there is a subtle allusion to the Jews and Christians who worshipped other than Allah, may He be exalted and glorified.
We will now conclude at this point, asking Allah may He be exalted for success and right guidance. He is the One who grants success. And may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon our master Muḥammed, and upon his family and all his companions. Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. And peace be upon the messengers. And praise be to Allah, Lord of all worlds.
The following is from Dr. Ahmed bin Jabir Al Miskiri (h). May Allah (swt) reward him for this. It is a more precise and technical understanding of the above discussion.
baptism/colouring] of Allah. And who is better than Allah in baptism? And we are worshippers of Him.” There has been much disagreement regarding the sibghah, yet we restrict this disagreement to two opinions: The first is the view of those who said that what is meant by the sibghah here is what Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, has infused into the hearts of His believing servants of their loyalty and obedience to Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, their belief in Him, in the prophets, and in what was sent down to them, and their acting in accordance with this faith. For this opinion indicates that Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, implanted in the believers the matters of faith, so their effects appeared upon their conduct, making these effects akin to a clear, manifest dye, by which they were distinguished from all other people.
The Arabs apply the term sibghah to morals, natural dispositions, and the upbringing with which a father raises his sons. From that is the poet’s saying: “And every people have a sibghah, and the sibghah of Hamdan is the best of sibgh; we have dyed our sons upon that, so how noble is our sibghah in the sibgh!” Indeed, what is meant by sibghah here is the upbringing whose psychological effects appear in conduct. And to this opinion returns the view of whoever interpreted sibghah as religion, whoever interpreted sibghah as the natural disposition (fitrah), whoever interpreted sibghah as the divine law (sharia), and whoever interpreted sibghah as circumcision. By my life, indeed whoever interpreted sibghah as circumcision has certainly narrowed the concept of sibghah!
The second opinion is that sibghah was mentioned by way of estimated matching (mushākalah); becauses some of the Jews, in bygone ages, used to perform the ritual bath of repentance, and this ritual bath continued until it resulted in what came to be called baptism and baptismal practices among some of the Christians. And the origin of that: that the priests one of them, when presenting a sacrifice of repentance for a sin he committed or a sin committed by the people of his household, and likewise during the feasts of repentance for the general sins of the Children of Israel used to bathe, and they continued to do so.
It was said that when John the son of Zechariah, peace be upon him, was calling the people to repentance, and whenever they repented, he would command them to bathe from the stream of the Jordan. And this was called in the Aramaic language (ma’mūdhut or ma’mūdhutā) meaning purification. And Jesus, peace be upon him, when he received the revelation, had first taken a bath and washed. The Arabs arabized the word (ma’mūdhut) into the word (ma’mūd), and they derived from it baptism (ta’mīd) and being baptized (ta’amud). So it was said of one who Christianized: “He was baptized” when he performed that bath which is followed by his embracing of Christianity. And they said of whoever performs that from among the Christian priests in admitting someone into Christianity: “He baptizes” or “he is a baptizer.”
It was said that when the severe disagreement arose between John the son of Zechariah and Jesus, peace be upon them, on the one hand, and the Jews on the other hand, the Jews abandoned this ritual bath, so it remained among some of the Christians and they persisted in it. And some of them when they began to baptize their children on the seventh day, and they say to the one for whom they baptized: “Today you have truly become a Christian.” The child on the seventh day of his birth is washed by them in water. This water is prepared in basins in the churches, and they claim that in this water are remnants of the water with which Jesus, peace be upon him, washed and which dripped from his body.
Whenever the water was on the verge of running out, they added new water to it so that those droplets which they claim remain present in that water might persist; this water is what is called the water of baptism. Based on this opinion, there is in the noble verse a matching (mushākalah); meaning: If you dye yourselves with this water with which you enter your religion, or with which you bring people into your religion, or with which you bring your children into your religion, then we have indeed dyed ourselves with the sibghah of Allah, the Exalted.
It is said that this water the Jews used to call the act of dipping into it (al-sab’-) from (saba’a, yasba’u) meaning to plunge in the Hebrew language. When the Arabs arabized that, they found it distasteful to use the root (saba’a) because it is a root that does not indicate this meaning in the Arabic language, so they arabized this word by dotting the ghayn (changing it to sabagha). Therefore, that was called sabghan, sibghan, and sibghah.
And sibghah is either an infinitive noun indicating state/manner like al-jilsah, or it is a passive participle, because the passive participle is brought in the measure of fi’l and fi’lah, like tihlun meaning ground, jaddun meaning existing, and hibbun meaning beloved. Likewise, the measure of fi’lah is brought when feminine intent is intended, like sibghah and shiqfah for a broken piece.
There has been much disagreement regarding the parsing (i’rāb) of al-sibghah here: some of them said that al-sibghah is in apposition (badal) to millata Ibrahima. Therefore, whoever recited millata Ibrahima in the accusative in recitation recited sibghata in the accusative, and whoever raised it raised it. And it was said: It is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid); it emphasizes the meaning in His saying, the Most High: {Say, “We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us”} meaning: as faith, the sibghah of Allah. This faith is the sibghah of Allah.
Some of them said that it is an affirmation for the entire sentence, as in his saying: It is an emphatic verbal noun for the entire preceding sentence, not an emphasis for a prior estimated verbal noun. Similar to this is the saying of Allah, the Glorified and Exalted: {And that Day the believers will rejoice * in the victory of Allah. He gives victory to whom He wills, and He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful * The promise of Allah}. The verbal noun is wa’da Allah meaning: Allah promised you that, His promise. This verbal noun emphasizes the entire preceding sentence: Sibghata Allah wa man ahsana min Allahi sibghah meaning: We are dyed with the sibghah of Allah, or the religion of Abraham is the sibghah of Allah, or as faith, the sibghah of Allah, or adhere to the sibghah of Allah.
And wa man ahsana min Allahi sibghah? Meaning: Which person is better in sibghah than Allah? And the intent is: Which sibghah from any person is better than the sibghah of Allah? The interrogation here is in the meaning of negation, indicating negation.
And wa nahnu lahu ‘ābidaūn; meaning: and we are submissive to Him, or and we are humbly submissive to Him, or and we are obedient to Him all of that has been said in the exegesis of worship (‘ibādah). Worship, as previously explained in Surah Al-Fatihah, is: absolute submission that stems from the soul with a feeling inspired by the correct belief in the Creator, the Glorified and Exalted; this is the correct worship required from man.
And nahnu lahu meaning to Allah alone, not to anyone else. Meaning: we do not associate anyone else with Him as worshippers (‘ābidūn). Therefore, the dependent element which is the preposition and its genitive was advanced over the dependent element which is ‘ābidūn for the sake of conferring restriction (ḥasr). And in this is an insinuation against the Jews and the Christians who worshipped other than Allah, the Glorified and Exalted.”
What are the key points from all of this?
The Two Main Interpretations
First Opinion: Metaphorical / Spiritual
Ṣibghah refers to the inward imprint of faith that Allah places in the hearts of believers.
It manifests in loyalty, obedience, belief in Allah and His prophets, and righteous action.
This faith becomes like a visible dye that distinguishes believers from others in their character and conduct.
The term is also linked to morals, natural disposition (fiṭrah), religion (dīn), divine law (sharī’ah), and even upbringing as in the poet’s example where a father “dyes” his children with his tribe’s noble values.
One interpreter even said it means circumcision, though Dr. Ahmed bin Jabir Al Miskiri (h) alternative translation adds a critical note that this narrows the concept too much.
Second Opinion: Historical / Ritual (Parallelism with some strands of Judaism and/or some strrands of Christian Baptism)
The word ṣibghah is used here as literary parallelism (mushākalah)—a rhetorical device where the Quran uses a term familiar to its audience to make a point, without adopting their literal meaning.
Background: Some Jews practiced ritual washing for repentance a practice that continued and evolved into Christian baptism (ma’mūdiyyah).
It was said that John the Baptist called people to repent and wash in the Jordan; Jesus also washed before receiving revelation.
The Aramaic term for this was ma’mūdhā (purification), which the Arabs Arabized into ma’mūd and derived ta’mīd (baptism).
It was noted that some Christian groups later baptized infants on the seventh day, using “holy water” kept in church basins. Water they believed contained remnants of the water Jesus used.
The Quranic twist: The verse is saying: “If you (Jews/Christians) dye/immerse yourselves in your ritual water, we (Muslims) have been dyed with Allah’s own baptism far superior.” It’s a rhetorical rebuttal, not an endorsement of the ritual.
3. Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis
Ṣibghah can be:
A verbal noun indicating manner/state (like jilsah = posture).
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
﷽
INTRODUCTION AND FRAMEWORK
I. Introduction: The Silence of the Apologists
If you were to tune into the Christian apologetic scene, they really seem to be on a tare about how Islam somehow is not in continuity with the Bible. At least that is their claim. Yet, they are awfully quiet about the biggest ritual in all of Christianity, namely the rite of baptism.
This fundamental ritual has been a matter of dispute among Christians until today. Does one get baptized in the name of Jesus only or in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
At what age does one get baptized? Can babies get baptized or not? Does a Church less Christian have authority to baptize? Can any self-professed Christian baptize any other self-professed Christian?
Is baptism required for salvation? What happens when there is no water available? Is it enough to be baptized in water? What is baptism by the Holy Spirit?
In our view this is not discussed enough in apologetic spaces.
Baptism. That quirky ritual found neither in Judaism or Islam.
The Qur’an addresses this matter directly:
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
This article argues that Christian baptism, the central rite of Christianity, has no foundation in the Hebrew Bible, no clear authorization from Jesus, and no consistent theological meaning across Christian traditions. In contrast, the Qur’anic concept of “the dye of Allah” (ṣib’ghat Allāh) offers a superior framework for spiritual purification rooted in the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity.
II. The Qur’anic Framework: Understanding “The Dye of Allah”
We have two English translations of Qur’an 2:138 as seen above. They are both sound in their meaning.
The Word sib’ghata: Literally translates to “dye” or “color”
The great scholar of tafsir Shaykh Muḥammed b. Yūsuf Aṭfayyish (r) has the following to say:
“{The dye of Allah (ṣibghat Allāh)} is the fiṭra of Allah, the primordial constitution upon which He created mankind. It is Islam, or divine enabling (tawfīq), or the conclusive proof (ḥujja); or it is the purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. It is likened to a dye in that it is outwardly manifest. As a dye is manifest. And an ornament; and in that it permeates the very depths of what is dyed, being firmly rooted therein; and in that by it man is set apart from all other animate creatures, and from the unbelievers, as a dyed garment is set apart. This is an explicit metaphor (istiʿāra taṣrīḥiyya), original (aṣliyya) and realized (taḥqīqiyya).”
“Alternatively, it was termed a “dye” by way of mushākala (assimilative phrasing) since it occurs adjacent to an elided expression, namely the Christians’ dyeing of their children in the water of baptism so that their Christianity might be confirmed. This is a yellow water, originally the water with which Jesus (peace be upon him) was washed on the third day after his birth; whenever it is depleted they add water to it, and they hold it to be a purification. It is said to be an Arabized rendering of maʿmūdhīnā. With a dotted dhāl. Meaning purity: water sanctified by what is recited over it from the Gospel, in which pregnant women then bathe.”
“Allah commanded the believers to say to the Christians: Say, we have believed in Allah, and Allah has dyed us with faith. A dye unlike the dye of baptism. {And who is better than Allah in dyeing?}. None is better than the dye of Allah, nor is any its equal, for it is Islam, which delivers from disgrace in this world and the next and bequeaths the good of both. {And we are His}. His alone, and no other’s, unlike your associating others with Him in worship, O company of Jews and Christian.”
Key Understanding: The “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. This stands in direct contrast to human-invented rituals like baptism. Shaykh Aṭfayyish’s commentary illuminates that the “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but an internal purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. This presents a profound critique. While Christians debate the mechanics of baptism, the Qur’an directs attention to the spiritual transformation itself.
THE ETYMOLOGY AND ORIGINS OF BAPTISM
III. What is the Etymology of Baptism?
[B-1,Verb,G907, baptizo] “to baptize,” primarily a frequentative form of bapto, “to dip,” was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping the cup into the bowl (Alexis, 67) and Plato, metaphorically, of being overwhelmed with questions (Euthydemus, 277 D).
βάπτω to dip in water Dodson: βάπτω I dip, dye (a) I dip, (b) I dye. Strong’s: βάπτω to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye)
This linguistic connection is significant. The Greek word from which “baptism” derives is fundamentally about dyeing, or immersing something in a liquid to change its color. This connects directly to the Qur’anic concept of ṣib’ghat Allāh (the dye/color of Allah). What the Qur’an presents as a spiritual metaphor, the New Testament makes into a physical ritual, and even its linguistic roots betray this connection to the very concept the Qur’an uses.
IV. The Historical Problem: Baptism’s Absence from the Hebrew Bible
The first place baptism is ever mentioned in the New Testament is as follows:
“In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.’ ” Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Matthew 3:1-6).
There are a number of issues with this text.
It quotes from Isaiah 40:3. It is a quote mine. There is nothing anywhere in Isaiah that talks about the ritual of baptism. This brings us to our most devastating observation.
There is no mention of a baptism ritual anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. None of the Prophets ever preached it or practiced it or participated in it. None.
With this information in mind the following text is highly unlikely:
“Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins”
In fact, this whole issue is unresolved in the New Testament. It leads to a showdown between Jesus and the Jewish scholars with the matter apparently being unresolved.
“They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?” Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’…” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” (Mark 11:27-33).
You can find the same in Matthew 21:23-32 and Luke 20:1-8.
John’s baptism: Was it from heaven, or of human origin? <<< This is the smoking gun.
If the ritual of baptism was practiced, preached or participated in by any of the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible we would not have this type of confrontation. Now, we are reading what is claimed to be the thoughts of the Jewish leadership.
“They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’…” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)
This begs the question. If the people really thought that John was a prophet then how can they flock to a person who is introducing a practice that is clearly not in continuity with Judaism?
How do we square these confrontations with the Jewish learned people when Jesus himself says the following:
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (Matthew 23:1-3)
So then what happens when they go to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees and ask them about baptism?
Matthew 21:23-32 has some additional information that Luke 20:1-8 and Mark 11:27-33 do not have.
Apparently not happy with the stalemate the writer of Matthew has Jesus try to one up the Jewish leadership.
“Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.” (Matthew 21:28–32)
However, this is nothing remarkable about what Jesus says here at all. It is not a rejoinder to the issue of where John got the authority to baptize.
Summary: No prophet in the Hebrew Bible ever preached, practiced, or participated in baptism. This is devastating to claims of continuity. This is not a minor detail. If baptism were essential for salvation, why would none of the prophets mention it or participate in it?
The Torah contains extensive legislation about purification rituals, sacrifices, and cleansing. Yet nothing resembling Christian baptism. The prophets called for repentance and turning to God, not ritual immersion in water for the forgiveness of sins.
V. Facts About John’s Baptism
Jesus replied:
“I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”
Facts about John’s baptism:
Jesus claims what John is doing has heavenly approval.
John wasn’t baptizing anyone in the name of Jesus.
John wasn’t baptizing anyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
John was baptizing people for the forgiveness of sins.
John’s baptizing involved no sacrifice or blood ritual.
Point 4 is explicitly stated in the following:
“And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4)
“He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)
VI. The Disconnect Between John’s Baptism and Christian Baptism
The question that has to be asked in regard to John’s baptism.
For Christians today the ritual of baptism carries the following significance:
Death and Resurrection.
Going under water: Represents dying with Christ and being buried.
Coming up from water: Signifies rising to a new life, mirroring Jesus’ resurrection.
The baptism of John could not possibly have meant those things to him or his followers as John was not even aware of Jesus (in fact he-John had to inquire about him-Jesus) and Jesus at that point hasn’t even died on a cross. So it is not possible that baptism has that theologically loaded understanding.
THE PROBLEM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
VII. The Tension Between Jesus and John the Baptist
What the New Testament text reveal is that there is a tension between Jesus and John the Baptist. In many places the New Testament writers go out of their way to belittle John the Baptist. As if he was a rival to Jesus.
The New Testament has Jesus have a dig at John the Baptist.
“Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Matthew 11:11)
“I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Luke 7:28)
In fact, this is a dig at all the Old Testament Prophets. That among all born among women there is none greater than John the Baptist. However, even the one who has the status of the ‘least’ in the kingdom of God/heaven is greater than John!
“Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Luke 3:16)
What do you mean untie his sandals? You are not even worthy to carry them much less untie them!
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
So whether John said he was unworthy to carry Jesus’ sandals or untie the straps of his sandals is beside the point. The point is that Jesus is greater than John the Baptist.
VIII. John’s Uncertainty: The Decisive Problem
The New Testament records a very difficult and strange interaction between prophet Jesus and prophet John.
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)
“After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee. When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Matthew 11:1-5)
There are lots of issues with this:
John is a Prophet. He is filled with the Holy Spirit (even before he is born). Why does the Holy Spirit not know who Jesus is? How can a Prophet from God not recognize another Prophet from God?
Why does Jesus inform John about things he (John) already heard?
It is like this: John was informed Jesus performed a light show. So John wants to know if Jesus is a Prophet of God. So Jesus says, ‘Tell him I performed a light show’. Isn’t John already aware of this?
“When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah.”
“Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.”
Basically go back and inform John about things John is already informed about! What?
Why does Jesus give information to John that could also be true of a false messiah?
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
How does Jesus feel that this information would be convincing to John?
Jesus is essentially saying to John: “I am the Messiah because I perform miracles.” But Jesus also warns that false messiahs will perform miracles. Therefore, miracles are not a reliable test of prophetic authenticity. John, being a prophet, should have known this. Why would Jesus offer a test that even Jesus himself says is unreliable?
It is very obvious that much to keen eyes that much of the information in the New Testament is convoluted.
John dies without ever knowing or declaring that Jesus is the Messiah.
There is not a single text anywhere in the New Testament that records John the Baptist explicitly uttering a statement of final, settled belief in Jesus before he (John) dies.
His final recorded words or actions regarding Jesus are a question of intense uncertainty from a prison cell, followed shortly by his sudden execution. Source: (Matthew 11:2-3) & (Matthew 14:10)
Since the Holy Spirit never guided John concerning Jesus how will he guide in the future?
“Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:11-15)
Question: How can the Holy Spirit be expected to guide into ‘all truth’ in the future if we have demonstrable evidence he hasn’t done so in the past?
Question: How can Muslims fault Christians for not seeing the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures when John the Baptist (a Prophet filled with the Holy Spirit) who saw Jesus, touched Jesus (he baptized him) and witnessed a voice from heaven STILL didn’t know that Jesus was the Messiah?
Are we Muslims being harsh with the Christians in light of this evidence?
According to the New Testament and the witness of John the Baptist, the title ‘Son of God’ had no special meaning that marked out Jesus from others.
Think about this. John the Baptist himself baptized Jesus. John the Baptist hears the voice from heaven saying:
“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” – Matthew’s version the voice addresses other than Jesus.
“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” – Mark’s version the voice addresses Jesus.
John the Baptist, a Prophet, filled with the Holy Spirit was sitting in prison and asked about Jesus:
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”
This is devastating. This shows us clear as day that this title ‘Son of God’ addressed from heaven itself was not enough to deter John from further inquiry!
This proves that the appellation, ‘Son of God‘ was nothing remarkable to John.
We discussed the idea that the Bible never presents God has having ‘only one son’ here:
IX. John the Baptist Does Not Quote a Single Reference in the Hebrew Bible to Validate Jesus
John the Baptist does not quote a single reference in the Hebrew Bible to validate Jesus. He is uncertain about who Jesus is.
The only reference that Christian apologist can think of is the following:
Then they said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” He said: “I am ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” (John 1:22-23)
If someone reads the above text, the name “Jesus” is nowhere to be found.
John is quoting Isaiah 40:3, which talks about preparing the way for “the Lord” (Yahweh in the original Hebrew). The connection to Jesus is an inference made by the author of the Gospel and later Christian theology, not a literal statement by John in that verse.
X. Jesus Validates John by Misquoting the Hebrew Bible
Jesus validates John by quoting references in the Hebrew Bible that he (Jesus) says is about John.
What is interesting about the gospels having Jesus testify to John is that this is actually a self-serving agenda. It is well known at this point that John precedes Jesus. So the Gospel writers have Jesus mention John being in the Hebrew scriptures because all the text that Jesus does quote end up quickly brushing John aside to point to Jesus.
“This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” (Matthew 11:10)
“This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” (Luke 7:27)
These are actually misquotes of Malachi 3:1
“Behold, I am sending My messenger to clear the way before Me, and the Sovereign you seek shall come to the temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming.” (Malachi 3:1) – Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Malachi.3.1)
“Behold I send My angel, and he will clear a way before Me. And suddenly, the Lord Whom you seek will come to His Temple. And behold! The angel of the covenant, whom you desire, is coming, says the Lord of Hosts.” Source: (https://www.chabad.org/ Translation of Malachi 3:1)
The New Testament misquotations are a shift in pronouns.
When Matthew and Luke quote this verse (Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27), they make a significant change: they render the pronouns in the second-person.
“Behold, I send My messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.”
The “your” here refers to Jesus. The New Testament authors are not citing the LXX or MT directly but are adapting the text to apply it to Jesus as the Messiah.
The infamous misattribution of Mark 1:2-3:
Mark’s use of this passage has a unique, and more famous, textual issue. Mark 1:2-3 is a composite quotation, weaving together Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.
“as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,’ ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,'” (Mark 1:2-3).
The problem is that the first quotation is from Malachi, while only the second is from Isaiah. This raises a question: why is the entire quotation attributed to Isaiah?
A Well-Attested Reading: The phrase “in Isaiah the prophet” has the support of the earliest and most important manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and others). This is almost certainly Mark’s original wording.
A Later “Correction”: Some later manuscripts change the wording to “in the prophets” (as seen in the King James Version). This is widely considered a scribal correction to resolve the apparent conflict of attributing a Malachi quote to Isaiah.
“And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” (Matthew 11:14)
So here Jesus validates John by claiming he is the return of Elijah and is thought to be a reference to the following text:
“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” (Malachi 4:5).
THE TIMING PROBLEM
XI. John in Prison Before Jesus’s Baptism
Look at the following text.
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them. But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison. When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”” (Luke 3:16–22)
“At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet. On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. John’s disciples came and took his body and buried it. Then they went and told Jesus.” (Matthew 14:12)
“But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison.”
This happens before Jesus is baptized.
This is a problem because it never says that John was released from prison. According to Matthew, John is beheaded in prison. However, Matthew has it that John has already baptized Jesus.
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.“” (Matthew 3:11-17)
Now, Christian apologists will point to the following text in Luke:
“When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized.”
It uses a passive participle. This specific grammatical structure can describe an action that happened prior.
To which we reply: “Yes, correct this is what the text indicates. However, it can still read that way and appear before Luke 3:19-20.”
Especially if this is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is preserved and passed down to us unadulterated.
Notice that Mark mentions John being in prison immediately after the baptism.
“John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”” (Mark 1:6-15)
All of the previous texts lead the sincere Christian truth seeker into some very uncomfortable conclusions.
JESUS AND BAPTISM
XII. Jesus Never Baptized Anyone (Or Did He?)
“After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.” (John 3:22)
ἐβάπτιζεν the verb ebaptizen (was baptizing) is imperfect active, meaning it was a continuous, ongoing action physically attributed to Jesus.
“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John. (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.) So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.” (John 4:1-3)
Notice the parenthetical clarification: “although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.” This is unique to John’s Gospel.
The text says that it was not Jesus who baptized but his disciples. This raises the curious question: Who baptized Jesus’ disciples? The New Testament does not record a single instance of any of Jesus’ disciples getting baptized. It is simply assumed.
If Jesus gave this command to his disciples we wouldn’t have the following controversy:
“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.” (Acts 10:44-48)
Why would people object to gentiles being baptized if Jesus instructed his 12 disciples to do exactly that?
If Jesus instructed elders and hierarchy for his church how could people question Peter and what he was doing?
Also note that these people received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.
XIII. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”” (Luke 3:16)
Jesus never did any such thing. That is why the Christians say this ‘baptism’ is symbolic or spiritual. It refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The “baptism of the Holy Spirit” becomes a spiritualized concept that cannot be empirically verified. Insh’Allah we will revisit this later in the article.
XIV. The So-Called Great Commission is a Forgery and a Contradiction
Note that in Mark 16:15-16 there is no baptismal formula given.
“And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
Notice the baptism formula given.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)
How are the unbaptized going to go and baptize others?
A missed opportunity: What the New Testament should have done is had Jesus rise from the dead and then in his glorified body baptize all his disciples and baptize them with fire.
Most critical scholars acknowledge that Mark 16:9-20 is not original to the Gospel of Mark. It is absent from the earliest and most important manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that it was absent from most Greek manuscripts. This is widely considered a later addition to resolve the abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 with ‘for they were afraid.'”
“Other ancient authorities omit verses 9–20. Some ancient authorities conclude Mark instead with the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
“This passage is regarded as inspired and canonical scripture even if not written by Mark. As it is missing from some important manuscripts, it is possible that Mark did not write it. On the other hand, he would hardly have left his Gospel unfinished at verse 8. Many think that the original ending was lost at a very early date and that this ending was composed at the end of the apostolic period to take its place.”
1. The ancient authorities had no problem with Jesus sending out his disciples with no mention of baptism.
2. The Church is the authority. Even if Mark did not write it. The Church has already read it as authoritative.
3. The Church admits that the original ending may have been lost, and this ending was composed. It does not say by whom.
BAPTISM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN PRACTICE
XV. The Evidence from Acts: Contradictions and Developments
“Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.” (Acts 18:24-26)
Look at what Paul does when Apollos is away.
“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.” (Acts 19:1-7)
The above text is striking.
These people who were baptized by John apparently never heard that there is a Holy Spirit. You have to wonder what type of teaching they actually received.
Also note that the above text says they received the Holy Spirit after being baptized. This is contrasted with (Acts 10:44-48) where they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.
Here this text blatantly shows that John’s baptism is inadequate. Paul had them all baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus!
THE MANDAEAN CONNECTION
XVII. Enter the Mandeans: The Other Religion That Practices Baptism
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
In Arabic, the Mandaeans are commonly known as aṣ-Ṣābiʾūn (الصابئون) or colloquially as al-Ṣubba (صُبَّة)
The Mandaean book of John also hints at historical tensions with other religions of the region. Specifically Christianity and Judaism. Parts of the book try to discredit both of these traditions. Mandaeans believe the mother of Jesus was Mandaean and became pregnant by witchcraft or some other source other than her husband. The book portrays her son Jesus as a deceiver who abandons his Mandaean heritage.
Ruha, the mother of darkness is sometimes called the holy spirit, a possible dig against the Christian holy spirit. The book of John (Draša d-Yaḥyā) also refers to the Jewish god as Adonai, called ‘Adunay’ in Mandaean. It characterizes him as an evil figure as well as his book, the Torah as a book of falsehoods.
In the Mandaean book of John when Jesus is baptized the voice/letter from heaven informs John: “You baptize the deceiver” and then the ruha, or the spirit makes an appearance. This spirit is a malevolent figure according to the Mandaeans.
For John the Baptist and for the Mandaeans baptism is not a death and resurrection ritual!
The Mandaean Parallel is Illuminating:
The Mandaeans also practice baptism as a central ritual.
They view Jesus as a deceiver and John the Baptist as their true prophet.
Their rituals and understanding of baptism differ radically from Christian theology.
This demonstrates that baptism was a contested practice in the ancient Near East, not a clear, divinely-mandated ritual unique to Christianity.
XVI. The “Evil Jesus” Problem
There could be some truth to what the Mandaeans say.
The New Testament itself mentions an evil Jesus.
“And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:” (Acts 13:6)
There is no power in the name Jesus. Jesus was a common name at that time. It could refer to an evil doer. This is why it is quite possible that the New Testament is talking about a Jesus entirely different from what we as Muslims believe.
“For if a person comes and preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit, which you had not received, or a different gospel, which you had not accepted, you put up with it splendidly!” (2 Corinthians 11:4)
Just so Christians could be clear that they were not being baptized in the name of evil Jesus there was always a modifier.
Observe!
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38)
“(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts 8:16)
“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Acts 10:48)
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)
In Acts 19:5, a number of “Western” textual witnesses add Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. translated as: ‘Christ for the forgiveness of sins’.
All of this to prevent Christians from being baptized into generic Jesus or evil Jesus.
Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.
‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’ are identifiers and modifiers so the people are not confused about which Jesus they are being baptized in. (Good Jesus or Evil Jesus).
THE THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM
XVIII. For the Christians the Meaning Behind Baptism
For the Christians the meaning behind baptism is spelled out for them.
“Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:3–4)
As we mentioned earlier in this article the baptism of John could not possibly have meant those things to him or his followers as John was not even aware of Jesus (in fact he-John had to inquire about him-Jesus) and Jesus at that point hasn’t even died on a cross. So it is not possible that baptism has that theologically loaded understanding.
With the Mandaeans recognizing Jesus as a deceiver and a disciple who betrayed John the Baptist, then their frequent baptisms also cannot have the theologically loaded understanding that Christians have.
XIX. Baptism by the Holy Spirit and Other Christian Disputes Over Baptism
Recall that in our article earlier we mentioned: The “baptism of the Holy Spirit” becomes a spiritualized concept that cannot be empirically verified.
“Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'” (Acts 2:38)
This is a promise, not a suggestion. It is addressed to everyone. Not just apostles, not just first-century believers. It is unconditional: repent → be baptized → receive the Spirit.
The question is: do we take this promise seriously? If so, then:
Every believer should expect to receive the Holy Spirit in a real, experiential way
The Spirit’s presence should be discernible. Whether through tongues, prophecy, healing, or other manifestations
The historic churches’ lack of these manifestations is not a sign of faithfulness, but a sign of loss or quenching of the Spirit
A Hard Question For the Historic Churches:
If the Holy Spirit is given to every believer at baptism (or confirmation/chrismation), then:
Why do believers in those traditions not consistently experience the Spirit’s power?
Why are the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 (tongues, prophecy, healing, miracles) not active in their congregations?
Why did the Pentecostal movement have to emerge in the 20th century to recover what the New Testament presents as normal?
The honest answer, from many within those traditions, is:
Cessationism – the belief that the miraculous gifts ceased with the apostles.
Sacramentalism – the belief that the Spirit is given through the ritual itself, regardless of experience.
Loss of expectation – generations of Christians have not been taught to expect the Spirit’s manifest presence.
But the New Testament does not teach cessationism. It does not separate the Spirit from experience. And it does not promise a Spirit whose presence is invisible and undetectable.
XX. Charismatic-Pentecostal-Holy Roller Churches Don’t Get the Full Hot Dog
Even those who argue that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is alive and well are very selective on what aspects of the Holy Spirit are seen and heard.
Examples.
“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” (Acts 2:1-4)
Who hears this rushing violent wind from heaven these days? Who witnesses tongues of fire upon the heads of Christians?
XXI. Baptism – Full Water Immersion and Christians Being Overly Ritualistic
How do these Christians deal with people who suffer from ablutophobia?
One Christian mentions that his seminary professor instructed him that if the one being baptized came up out of the water with their head dry, then they would need to be immersed again!
One Christian retells a story about a member in their church who was disabled and could not go under water. So after discussion the elders arranged for this person to be lifted into a hot tub where the baptism was given by pouring water over their head.
What about situations in the desert when you have no water? The person is dying and they want to convert and be baptized?
These practical problems expose the human origin of the ritual.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
XXII. Summary of Findings
1. Baptism Has No Hebrew Bible Foundation
No prophet preached, practiced, or participated in baptism.
The Torah is silent on this ritual.
The Isaiah 40:3 quotation is a “quote mine” about preparation, not baptism.
2. John’s Baptism Was Novel and Unresolved
The Mark 11:27-33 confrontation proves this.
Jewish religious leaders could not determine its source.
Jesus refused to answer the question.
If it had scriptural basis, the leaders would have known.
3. The Timing and Chronology Problems
John was apparently in prison before Jesus’s baptism.
A beheaded John cannot baptize Jesus.
The passive participle in Luke doesn’t resolve the problem.
4. John’s Baptism Could Not Mean What Christians Claim
John baptized before Jesus’s death/resurrection.
No death/resurrection symbolism was possible.
John’s baptism was merely for repentance and forgiveness.
This contradicts Paul’s theology of baptism.
5. Jesus Never Baptized Anyone
John 4:1-3 explicitly says Jesus didn’t baptize.
His disciples baptized, but we never learn who baptized them.
This raises serious questions about the ritual’s importance.
6. Jesus Failed to Baptize with the Holy Spirit
John prophesied this (Matthew 3:11).
It never happened as described.
It becomes a spiritualized, unverifiable concept.
7. The Great Commission Has Textual Problems
Two different versions (Mark and Matthew).
Mark’s version has no baptismal formula.
The Trinitarian formula appears only in Matthew 28:19.
The longer ending of Mark is a later addition.
8. The “Evil Jesus” Problem
Acts mentions Bar-Jesus (a sorcerer).
Paul warns about “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4).
Christians use modifiers to distinguish (“Lord Jesus,” “Jesus Christ”).
This suggests confusion about which Jesus was being preached.
9. Mandaeans Provide Historical Parallels
They practice baptism but view Jesus as a deceiver.
Their Book of John calls Jesus a “deceiver” at baptism.
This shows baptism was a contested practice.
10. John’s Uncertainty Is the Decisive Argument
John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth.
He witnessed the heavens open and heard the divine voice.
Yet he still asked: “Are you the one who is to come?”
If John could be uncertain, why trust Christian interpretations?
Muslims are not being harsh with Christians; John’s failure proves the point.
XXIII. The Qur’anic Alternative
The opening verse (Qur’an 22:17) highlights that Allah alone will judge between the various religious communities. This is a reminder that ultimate authority rests with Allah, not human traditions.
“The dye of Allah (ṣib’ghata Allāh)” is a powerful metaphor for the natural constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. This stands in direct contrast to human-invented rituals like baptism.
Shaykh Aṭfayyish’s commentary illuminates: the “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but an internal purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. This presents a profound critique. While Christians debate the mechanics of baptism, the Qur’an directs attention to the spiritual transformation itself.
XXIV. Conclusion: The Crux of the Matter
Our analysis demonstrates that baptism is a ritual without clear biblical foundation, differently understood across Christian and Mandaean traditions, and historically disconnected from the practice of the Hebrew prophets.
The most powerful observation is this: If the Jewish religious leaders, who sat in Moses’ seat and were experts in the Torah, could not determine the source of John’s baptism, how can Christians today be certain of its divine origin?
The most profound observation concerns John the Baptist’s lack of certainty about Jesus:
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matthew 11:2-3)
John who is filled with the Holy Spirit even before birth (Luke 1:15) could be uncertain despite:
Being Jesus’s cousin
Baptizing Jesus
Witnessing the heavens open
Hearing the divine voice declaring Jesus as the Son
Are we Muslims too harsh on Christians?
How can we Muslims be overly critical with Christians for not finding Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures when John himself, who had direct experience of Jesus, remained uncertain as to who Jesus was?
If John the Baptist who was the greatest man born of a woman according to Jesus himself (Matthew 11:11), could have direct contact with Jesus and still not be certain of his identity, then how can we as Muslims think that Christians will recognize Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures?
If the Holy Spirit who was supposed to guide into all truth left John in a state of confusion about Jesus, then:
Why should Christians believe the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth regarding their own scriptures?
Why should Muslims accept Christian interpretations of ambiguous Old Testament prophecies when the very prophet who baptized Jesus couldn’t figure out who Jesus was?
XXV. Final Appeal
The Qur’an offers a superior alternative. The “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. True purification comes from turning to Allah, not from immersion in water, regardless of who performs it or with what formula.
As the Qur’an states:
“Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
Allah alone knows the hearts. It is He who will judge between the communities, not just on the basis of their rituals, but on the basis of their sincerity, intentions, faith and actions.
“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:111)
﷽
This above verse encapsulates the Qur’anic approach to interfaith debate, which is not limited to textual proofs, but reasoned proof. This is sensible considering huge swathes of the population were illiterate. Illiteracy does not mean one could not reason or one could not think.
What is striking and deeply ironic is that the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not merely a Protestant argument against Islam. It is a veiled attack on traditional Christianity itself. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christians who adopt this argument are unwittingly fighting on Protestant ground, using Protestant weapons, against their own ecclesial principles.
The “Islamic Dilemma” is a very specific form of argument. It is a logical, text-based trap: if it is assumed that the Qur’an says the Bible is true, and the Bible contraditcts Islam, then Islam is false. However, If the Bible is unreliable and corrupted, then it is assumed that Islam is still false because of the claim that the Qur’an repeatedly affirms the divine authority, inspiration, and preservation of the very same scriptures.
The trap is clever, but it rests on a fatal assumption: that the Qur’an is referring to the Protestant canon, and that it commands the laity to consult it directly. Neither assumption is true.
For the Protestant this is a debate about the accuracy and authority of written texts.
For a Catholic, Orthodox, or Assyrian Christian, this framing is a false start as well as a betrayal of their own tradition. The ‘dilemma’ demands that the Bible be treated the way Protestants imagine Muslims treat the Qur’an: as a direct, self-interpreting, accessible text for the laity. Yet this is a caricature of both traditions.
Muslims have always had direct access to the Qur’an through recitation and prayer. It is memorized, recited, and heard. Yet like Christians before the Reformation, they have never approached it as a text for private interpretation. The Shi’i have their Imams; the Sunni and Ibadi have their scholars and jurists. The Church, not the text, is the pillar of truth for traditional Christians. And the community of scholars, not the individual, is the pillar of interpretation for Muslims. Both traditions are built on communal, mediated authority. Only Protestantism is built on the chaos of the individual.
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is demonstrablyhistorically fallacious.
It posits that Christians in the 7th century engaged with their scriptures rather than defer to Church authority.
It posits that Muslims in the 7th century accept books that Protestants themselves today do not accept.
It posits that Muslims and Christians engaged in cross referencing Bible canons with the Qur’an.
It posits that people in the 7th century have a high degree of literacy.
It posits that Bible canons were widely availabe to every Christian household.
The Qur’an engages communities and their learned.
“We did not send before you except as men to whom We revealed. Ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.” (Qur’an 16:43)
(And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men whom We inspired…) [16:43]. This verse was revealed about the idolaters of Mecca who denied the prophethood of Muhammed, Allah bless him and give him peace. They said: “Allah is too great to have a human being as His messenger; could He not have sent an angel?”
Notice that the people are being told to ask the people. They are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.
“So “if you are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, then ask those who are reciting the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).” (Qur’an 10:94)
Notice it says ask those who are reciting the book. The one(s) being addressed are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.
As regard the ‘if’ Arabic grammar has conditionals that are similar to what we find in English.
The zero conditional is used for universal truths or general facts. Example: If water reaches 100°C, it boils.
The second conditional is used for unlikely or hypothetical scenarios. Example: If I won a million dollars, I would travel the world.
So the example used above is the conditional used for universal truths and general facts.
The zero conditional in Arabic (as in English) is not a genuine hypothetical. When the Qur’an says ‘If you are in doubt…’ it is not suggesting that doubt is possible. Rather, it is establishing a universal principle: when in doubt (and the Prophet -peace be upon him, was not), the remedy is to ask the learned. The ‘if’ is rhetorical. To make a point, not to suggest a real possibility.
Examples in the Qur’an:
“Say, “If The Most Merciful had a son, I would certainly have been the first one to worship him.” Exalted is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.”(Qur’an 43:81-82)
The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. Allah does not have a son.
“Say, “If there had been with Him gods, as they say, then they would have sought to the Owner of the Throne a way.” (Qur’an 17:42)
The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. There are no other gods.
Also, let us take a look at a key part of the text. “Ask those who are reciting the book.” It doesn’t say ask the Jews or Samaritans. It doesn’t say ask the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christian, or the Eastern Orthodox. It says, ‘those who are reciting the book‘. So, if Muhammed (saw) asked ‘those who are reciting the book, he would receive some common themes but also a cacophony of discordant voices.
This confirms the following:
“Do not be like those who became divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them.” (Qur’an 3:105)
“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:1111)
Notice the text says ‘produce your proof’ it does not say ‘let us consult the torah and the gospel’.
Another example.
“Or have they taken gods besides Him? Say, “Produce your proof. This is the message for those with me and the message of those before me.” But most of them do not know the truth, so they are turning away.” (Qur’an 21:24)
In both examples with the idolaters of mecca, the jews and the christians all are being told to ‘produce their proofs’ what are your arguments.
Why do the rabbis (l-rabaniyuna) and religious scholars (ahbaru) not forbid them from saying what is sinful and devouring what is unlawful? How wretched is what they have been practicing.” (Qur’an 5:63)
This is a clear appeal to authority. The rabbis and scholars could only be faulted if it was known that they had authority over thier people. The verse presupposes that the religious leaders have authority and that they are failing in their duty. This is a direct parallel to the traditional Christian model, where bishops and councils, not laypeople, are the authority.
This is not accidental. The Protestant project has always sought to undermine ecclesiastical authority. By recruiting traditional Christians to fight the ‘Islamic Dilemma,’ Protestants are achieving what centuries of polemics could not: getting Catholics and Orthodox to abandon their own ecclesial principles and adopt the Protestant method of direct textual engagement.
It is bad enough that Protestant Evangelicals are ignorant of the context of 7th century Arabia, as well as the reality of the Pagan Arabs, as well as the Jewish and Christian communities.
What is extremely shocking is that representatives of traditional churches are willingy to drink from the same cup of ignorance.
Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) has never been the position of any traditional church.
Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
The problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority. This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.
The problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.
This is circular because:
The Church’s authority depends on the Bible The Bible’s authority depends on the Church Neither can independently validate the other.
So here we are. The real issue is we were promised someone who would SPEAK but in reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.
The problem for the Catholics/Orthodox is that Protestants have unwittingly recruited them into an argument that undermines them and their authority.
The layman did not go directly to the text in the 7th century Arabia.
There are number of reasons historically why this is not the case.
1) Literacy, one cannot assume that the average person could read and write, Arabic, Amharic, Ge’ez, Aramaic, Greek. For example the reference in Qur’an 10:94. This has to obviously be a reference to those who can read. This brings us to the next point.
2) Not only does Qur’an 10:94 have to be a reference to those who can read but those who would have access to a text. So this brings us to the lack of accessibility to the text. Today a Bible can be found in your average hotel. In that time people were not walking around with full canons.
3) It is a Protestant approach to go direct to the scripture and not a Traditional Church perspective. If one was Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East, it was not the habit of laypeople to go directly to the text.
Thus, the Qur’anic command to ‘judge by what Allah has revealed’ cannot mean ‘read the Bible for yourself.’ It would have been historically impossible for the vast majority of Christians to comply. The command must mean something else entirely something consistent with both the traditional model of authority and the lived reality on the ground.
The Protestant use of the Islamic Dilemma is actually a full frontal attack on traditional Christianity (be it Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East). Imagine Protestants telling Muslims to go direct to the Torah or the Injeel without the medium of the Holy Spirit or the guidance of the Church!! This is very mischievous and very cunning proposition propagated by the Protestants (esp evangelicals).
There were no Protestant churches nor a Protestant canon in the 7th century.
*Note*
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church did not split until 1054. Therefore the above graph should have them united as: Orthodox Catholic Church.
The following verse is often used by Protestant Christians.
“Do you believe in some of the book and reject the rest? Is there any reward for those who do so among you other than disgrace in this worldly life and being subjected to the harshest punishment on the Day of Judgment? For Allah is never unaware of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:285)
For the sake of argument let us say that Muslims understand this verse in the way that Protestants do.
What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is part of the book and what is not?
What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is scripture and what is not?
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular the tribes of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh what would the Samaritans advise in regard to following which scriptures?
The Muslim would find that the Samaritans reject all parts of the Bible except what they consider the Torah. That is to say they only accept Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. They reject the rest.
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular those who are called Jews, what would be the advise in terms of scripture?
The Muslims would find that the bulk of Jews follow more than the five books that the Samaritans follow. They also follow an oral torah.
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that accepted the following books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees.
The Protestant canon of 66 books did not exist in the 7th century. It was a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an could not possibly be endorsing a canon that did not yet exist. This alone destroys the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that differ on the canon of the New Testament as well.
“By the beginning of the 5th century, or slightly earlier, the Syrian Church’s version of the Bible, the Peshitta (‘simple’ translation) was formed. For the New Testament it represented an accommodation of the Syrian canon with that of the Greeks. It contains 22 books – all of the present New Testament except:
II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John.”
“For the eastern part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) the East Syrians separated themselves as the Nestorians. There are many surviving manuscripts of the Peshitta, the oldest of which bears the date 442. For much more on Peshitta history, see the article at The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. It is noteworthy that exactly these 22 books are cited by John Chrystosom (~347-407) and Theodoret(393-466) from the School of Antioch. For a visual summary of these 22 books see the Cross Reference Table.”
Thus, even if we assume the Qur’an is endorsing the Peshitta canon, it would be endorsing a Bible that lacks five books the Protestant considers canonical. Which canon did the Qur’an endorse? The answer: none. The Qur’an does not endorse any canon. It endorses the original revelation, which is now lost or corrupted.
The Protestants imagine that the Qur’an is somehow endorsing a tangible canon.
What tangible canon would that be? Especially seeing that the Christians themselves were/are in dispute over it?
This is the same question that Christians who follow a traditional Church pose to those who espouse ‘anti-Islamianity’. That is why their whole preaching is against Islam, but they don’t have anywhere for Muslims to go after they apostate from Islam. It’s just anti-Islam teaching, but they (those preachers) do not reveal which church they are affiliated with. That is if they are affiliated with one at all.
This is also known as ‘churchless apologetic’.
This is why the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is promoted primarily by ‘churchless apologists’. Grifters and independent evangelicals with no affiliation to any traditional Church. They have no stake in defending a particular ecclesiastical tradition. They simply want to tear down Islam, with no thought to where the Muslim convert would go. They are a law unto themselves, accountable to no one but their own whims and private interpretations. And this, ironically, is precisely what the traditional Churches have always warned against i.e The chaos of sola scriptura without the anchor of ecclesiastical authority.
Let us reflect on what Pope Benedict XVI said in his ‘What Is Christianity?’
“All of this means that the Christian faith is not a religion of the Book (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 108 and the Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini of 2008). Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. There is a double exchange here, a relationship of subordination and superordination. On the one hand, the Church clearly submits to the Word of God, always having to let itself be guided and judged by it, on the other hand, however, Scripture, starting from its whole, can only be adequately interpreted in the living Church. This position, adopted by the whole Church until the 16th century, was rejected in the Reformation with the principle of sola scriptura . Christianity now appears as a religion of the Book.
Source: (Benedetto XVI Che Cos’e il Cristianesimo quasi un testamento spirituale).
Here we have the Pope himself affirming that the Catholic Church does not treat the Bible as a self-interpreting text. The Qur’an says the same thing: ‘Ask the People of the Reminder.’ The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not just unhistorical it is anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox, and anti-Assyrian.
Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. -Pope Benedict.
Example.
The doctrine of Invincible Ignorance.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that not everyone necessarily needs to confess Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour simply becuase not everyone is able to do so.
“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
“But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-9)
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” (John 3:18)
These text seem very clear that one needs to confess their faith in Jesus to be saved. However, the Roman Catholic Church via it’s doctrine of ‘Invincible Ignorance’ says not so fast.
The concept of invincible ignorance allows for the salvation of young children, the mentally disabled, and others who never heard the gospel.
St Augustine has a whole chapter title called: Chapter 2 [II.]— Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life.
He states:
“Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ’s divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh. 1 Timonty 3:16 For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Romans 10:17-18. Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few)”
The doctrine of invincible ignorance even allows for pagans who persecuted and killed Christians to enter heaven if the Pope prays for their deliverance. There is no need for the person to confess Christ even if they are able.
John of Damascus said that God freed Trajan from Hell after the prayers of Saint Gregory the Great.
“Further, the Damascene in the same sermon relates that Gregory, while praying for Trajan, heard a voice from heaven saying to him: “I have heard thy voice, and I pardon Trajan; : and of this fact the Damascene adds in the same sermon, “the whole East and West are witnesses. ” Yet it is clear that Trajan was in hell, since “he put many martyrs to a cruel death” [De his qui fide dormierunt]. Therefore the suffrages of the Church avail even for those who are in hell.”
The Roman Catholic Church can appeal to scripture but it is not necessay.
“And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)
“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)
So Catholics argue that God cannot issue commands that people can’t obey.
If the Catholic Church can interpret away the seemingly clear words of Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:9, then on what basis do Protestants claim that the Bible is self-iexplanatory? The very existence of the doctrine of invincible ignorance proves that the Church and not the text is the final authority.
Catholics like Sam Shamoun and Cameron Bertuzzi stand ready to debate Protestants like Anthony Rogers and Samuel Green on Invincible Ignorance.
The Protestant project has always sought to undermine church authority.
In Mainz, Germany, in the mid-1450s, Johann Gutenberg and his partner Johann Fust published more than 150 large-format copies of the Bible in Latin. This is the book known today as the Gutenberg Bible. That was in the 1450s, and there were 150 copies.
Up until that point, imagine all the Christian souls scattered throughout the Earth; they lived and died without once having or holding an individual Bible in their possession. Hopefully, some Christians will be more appreciative of this fact.
For over a millennium, Christians had no personal Bibles. They relied on the Church. They relied upon its liturgy, its priests, its bishops, its councils. The Protestant idea that the Bible is for the laity is a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an, revealed in the 7th century, could not have been commanding Christians to do what was historically impossible.
Books in those times were luxury items reserved exclusively for the ultra-wealthy, ruling elites, and church communities.
Ordinary Christians experienced the scriptures orally. They would gather together at church services to hear a literate priest or bishop read the letters and gospels aloud.
That Christian laity did not rely upon the Bible to receive their guidance. They relied upon their respective church, whether it was the Latin Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church, Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church, and not scripture, was the source of guidance and inspiration for the average Christian.
We can clearly see that the Qur’an has never endorsed the entirety of any Biblical canon or text.
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ has two horns both of which rest on an assumption. The assumption is that the Qur’an claims the Bible is true.
Does the Qur’an claim the Bible is true?
The word Bible has its etymological root in the Greek ta biblia, which means “small books”.
Possibly the closest equivalent would be the following:
“The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They believe in Allah, His angels, His Books (kutubihi), and His messengers.” (Qur’an 2:285)
This particular verse does not clarify which books are to be believed. Only that Muslims are to believe in ‘His Books’.
As we have demonstrated that historically speaking, Protestants cannot prove that the Qur’an 2:285 is identical to a 66 book canon.
One thing is certain. The Gospel is not included in the text of Qur’an 2:285. Hoever, Jesus is included in Qur’an 2:285.
The Qur’an never describes the Gospel as a book given to Jesus.
“And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:48)
An interesting note on the above. If the Torah was intact there would be no need for Allah to teach the Torah to Jesus.
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus , the son of Mary, (ma bayna yadayhi) having authority over the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and having authority over that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:46)
“So let the people of the Gospel judgeby what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the rebellious.” (Qur’an 5:47)
If the Gospel was in pristine condition the verse would have simply stated:
“And let the Christians judge by the Gospel.”
Yet, it is drawing attention to the ‘People of the Gospel’ (ahlul l’injili) to judge by what Allah has revealed therein.
The people who have the nomenclature ‘People of the Gospel’ are to judge.
Again keep in mind this is not a call for Christian laity to engage directly with their text.
Recall that we have already established two unassailable points. 1. Literacy was not widespread among all people. 2. Even it were not everyone had access to a text.
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them(ʿindahum).” (Qur’an 7:157)
If a person possesses a heavily edited or condensed version of a historical document, it is still legally and conversationally “with them” (ʿindahum).
Example.
“And those who disbelieve say, ‘Why was the Qur’an not revealed to him all at once?” (Qur’an 25:32)
This is a reference to the Qur’an but the entirety of the Qur’an was not revealed at this time. Yet the text is still calling it the Qur’an.
The Qur’an debunks the Protestant claim of preservation.
“There are some among them who distort what is in the Book(bil-kitabi) with their tongues to make you think this is from (l-kitabi) the Book but it is not what the (l-kitabi) Book says. They say, “It is from Allah”—but it is not from Allah. And they attribute lies to Allah knowingly.” (Qur’an 3:78)
The Protestants sweep this accusation aside by affirming that the text doesn’t say anything about textual corruption. It is about people who twist the words and meanings of their sacred text. However, as pointed out in a society where illiteracy was common place, the laity did not go directly to the text and many of them did not have the requisite language skills to acces it. This was already quite poisonous.
However, the next text are not so easily swept aside.
“Have you any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen(yasma’una) to the word of Allah, then used to (yuharrifunahu)change it, after they had understood(‘aqaluhu) it, knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:75)
This verse is quite explicit in the damnation of these people. That they actually would listen to the words of Allah (auditory hearing), they understood it, confirmed it and knowingly changed it during the oral transmission process!
Received the revelation from Allah.
Understood it.
Knowingly distorted it during the oral transmission process.
One would have to be extremely vile to do such a thing.
‘Then woe to those who write the Book (l-kitaba) with their own hands, and then say: “This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.’ (Qur’an 2:79)
This is what we find “with them” (ʿindahum).
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the (תּוֹרַת יְהֹוָהTorat YHWH) law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (Jeremiah 8:8)
Notice the text of Qur’an 2:79 says they make gain by what they wrote.
The following says that Jews can give interest to non-Jews but not to one another.
“Unto a foreigner you may lend interest; but not unto your brother you shall not lend interest, that Jehovah your God may bless you in all that you put your hand on, in the land wherever you go into possess it. When you shall vow a vow unto Jehovah your God, you shall not be slack to pay it: For Jehovah your God will surely require it of you; and it would be sin in you.” (Deuteronomy 23:20-21)
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ uno verse card.
The Qur’an claims that the Gospel, Zabur and Torah are revelation from Allah. If one claims they have the Gospel, Zabur or Torah and those contents do not claim it is from Allah then it should be rejected.
For example, let us imagine that the Gospel is equivalent to any number of competing New Tesatament canons (35 books, 22 books or 27 books) this in and of itself raises questions how one objectively comes to the correct number of books.
However, is there anywhere where the New Testament claims that it is from God?
Many Christians will point to 2 Timothy 3:16.
Let us examine the text.
“Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.”
Well, this doesn’t say much. Every writing (graphé)inspired by God is profitable. This begs the question. On what objective basis does the Protestant determine which writings are inspired by God?
Predicative: All scripture (as a category) is inspired
ASV / RSV / NEB
“Every writing inspired by God is also profitable…”
Restrictive: Only inspired scripture is profitable
The Grammatical Issue
The Greek construction πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (pasa graphē theopneustos) is ambiguous:
Predicative Reading: “All writing is God-breathed” (the adjective describes the entire category)
Restrictive Reading: “Every writing that is God-breathed” (the adjective limits the category)
The Critical Point:
The absence of the verb “is” (ἐστιν – estin) in the Greek makes the translation a matter of interpretation. There is no explicit “is” in the text. The translator must decide whether to supply it as a predicative or a restrictive statement.
By the way, most of your translations will translate graphé as ‘scripture’ to give you the indication that it is somehow sacred.
Look how the various translations render the Greek into English.
The restrictive reading makes the most sense. That is because there is no Christian on Earth that believes that every writing is God -breathed. That would also make the Qur’an God-breathed and we would not be having this conversation.
The problem for the Protestant. (Every Christian must ask this in reality).
If only some writings are God-breathed, then:
Who determines which writings are inspired?
What is the criterion for inspiration?
How do we know which graphē are God-breathed?
This leads to the question of canon.
The Circular Problem:
Protestant Claim: 2 Timothy 3:16 proves that all Scripture is inspired.
Problem: The verse does not tell us which writings are Scripture.
Result: We must have a canon to know which writings are inspired.
But: The canon is determined different competing apostolic Churches, not by the text itself.
This is circular because:
The Church’s authority depends on the Bible. The Bible’s authority depends on the Church. Neither can independently validate the other.
So here we are. In reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ undermines Jesus teachings and becomes a Satanic Dilemma for themselves.
“If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. “How then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:26)
The context of Matthew 12:26 is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees, who accused him of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul (Satan). Jesus used logical reasoning to expose the flaw in their claim, explaining that a divided kingdom or household cannot survive. Therefore, it would make no sense for Satan to cast out his own demons, as that would mean working against himself and destroying his own kingdom
The Protestant claim is that the spiritual force behind the Qur’an is none other than Satan.
If Satan inspired the Qur’an, why would he command people to follow the Torah and Gospel?
The Bible says Satan is the father of lies.
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44).
If he is the father of lies, he would not inspire a book that tells people to follow the truth (the Bible).
Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be from Satan. It must be from God.
The Christian cannot escape this without admitting that the Qur’an is either:
A) From God (which they deny), or
B) A bizarre, self-defeating satanic book that commands people to follow the very scripture that would lead them to Jesus and save them from Satan. This ultimately debunks Jesus logic given in Matthew 12:26.
C) The Christian must admit that the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what Jews call the Torah. This would mean the Qur’an’s confirmation is selective, conditional, and discriminatory. But this undermines the entire foundation of the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.
The Christian cannot say the Qur’an is entirely false (because it commands people to follow the Bible) and cannot say it’s entirely true (because that would mean accepting Islam). The only logical exits are:
Admit the Qur’an is from God (conversion).
Admit that Satan sometimes commands people to follow God (which is theologically absurd)
Admit the Muslim position is true (the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what the Jews call the Torah -which undermines both faiths.) < This would be what Satan would do. Satan would obfuscate a matter not lead people to God.
This is why traditional Christian Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East did not use these type of arguments against Islam.
They recognized the logical fallacy of such arguments. However, many catechumens of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition have fallen for the Protestant approach. They have brought shame and disrepute towards their respective churches.
The ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is a Protestant invention. It is historically ignorant, theologically shallow, and logically self-defeating. It betrays the very traditions it purports to defend. Traditional Christians who embrace it are unwittingly abandoning their own principles and fighting a battle on Protestant ground. The Qur’an invites a different approach: reasoned argument, consultation with the learned, and a return to the original revelation that it confirms and clarifies. The question is not ‘Which text is true?’ but ‘Where is the truth?’ And the Qur’an answers: it is in the Reminder that Allah has sent down. It is clear, preserved, and accessible to all who seek it.
To fully appreciate the Qur’anic message, we must imagine the religious landscape of the 7th century. it was a world of competing factions, warring sects, and conflicting claims to truth.
Consider the scene. The Jews and Samaritans were at odds with one another. The Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, rejected the Prophets and Writings, and worshipped on Mount Gerizim. The Jews accepted the entire Tanakh and worshipped in Jerusalem. Both claimed to be the true heirs of Abraham. Both anathematized the other neither accepting Jesus as the Messiah, each claiming to possess the true Torah. The Samaritans had their own version of the Torah, their own Mount Gerizim, their own priesthood. The Jews had their own Torah, their own Temple Mount, their own rabbinic traditions.
Then you had the Christians. But which Christians? The Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christians, the Eastern Orthodox all arguing with one another over the nature of Christ, the number of his natures, the proper way to calculate Easter, the veneration of icons. Each claimed to be the true Church. Each claimed to have the true faith. Each anathematized the others.
These Christians practiced baptism as a death and resurrection ritual.
Then you had the Sabeans, also known as the Mandeans. They accepted John the Baptist but not Jesus. They practiced ritual baptism, but it carried a different meaning than what the Christians claimed. They had their own scriptures, their own prophets, their own traditions. They were a living witness to the fact that baptism was not the exclusive property of Christianity.
And among all these groups, there was no unified voice. The Pope in Rome claimed authority over the West. The Patriarch of Constantinople claimed authority over the East. The Patriarch of Alexandria claimed authority over Egypt and Ethiopia. The Patriarch of Antioch claimed authority over Syria and beyond. Each claimed to be the successor of Peter, the guardian of the true faith.
There was no single Bible. There were multiple canons: the 27-book canon of the West, the 22-book canon of the Syrian Church, the longer canons of the Ethiopian and Coptic Churches. There were multiple languages: Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Ge’ez, Armenian. There were multiple traditions: the Latin Rite, the Byzantine Rite, the Syriac Rite, the Alexandrian Rite.
Into this chaos came Muhammed, peace be upon him, with a single, powerful, unifying voice. He did not claim to bring a new religion. He came to restore the ancient faith of Abraham. The faith that all the prophets had taught. He did not speak from his own authority. He recited what was revealed to him by Allah, through the Angel Gabriel. He did not claim to be a new pope or patriarch. He claimed to be the final Messenger, confirming what was true in the previous revelations and correcting what had been corrupted.
The message was simple, clear, and cohesive:
There is no god but Allah, and Muhammed (saw) is His Messenger.
Allah is One. Not three, not incarnate.
All the prophets from Adam to Jesus (upon them be peace) taught the same message: submission to the One God.
The Qur’an is the final, preserved, and clarifying revelation.
Judgment is coming. Believe and do good. Or reject it and face the consequences.
For a truth-seeker in the 7th century, the choice was clear. On one side, a cacophony of competing sects, conflicting canons, and anathematizing councils. On the other side, a single, powerful, unifying voice calling all people to submit to the One God. Which message was more cohesive? Which message was more compelling? Which message would you follow?
Allah/God addresses this very scene:
‘So He has made the religion straight and simple. And do not be divided over it.’ (Qur’an 42:13)
‘And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided.’ (Qur’an 3:103)
‘And those who have been given the Book did not differ except after knowledge had come to them—out of jealousy among themselves.’ (Qur’an 42:14)
The Qur’anic message of unity was not just theological it was a lived reality. It offered clarity in a world of confusion. It offered authority in a world of division. It offered access to revelation in a world where the layperson was excluded from the text. And it offered a single, unified community in a world of warring sects.
“O humanity! What has emboldened you against your Lord, the Most Generous?” (Qur’an 82:6)
May Allah guide the sincere Christians who are longing for the truth. Those who have a hunger in their heart for guidance.
“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD. But when he came to them with clear arguments, they said: This is clear enchantment.”(Qur’an 61:6)
﷽
This text of the Qur’an has either been a means where Christians have tripped themselves up; or it has been a huge eye opener, one that has led many of them to embracing Islam.
So when dealing with Christians concerning this text you will find those who fall into one of two categories.
A) Those who are insincere and think this text of the Qur’an is some how a problem for Muslims.
B) Those whom are sincerely inquiring into the matter and willing to ponder over the justifications that are given.
The first very obvious point is that this text of the Qur’an no where said that Ahmad is written in any competing number of Christian New Testament canons. The text states: “And when Jesus, son of Mary, said:
Often those Christians antagonistic to Islam read the above text of the Qur’an and think that a Muslim should reply: “Oh yes that is in Matthew chapter so and so verse so and so.”
There is nothing in Qur’an 61:6 that would indicate that the name ‘Ahmad’ would be captured in any of the competing Christian New Testament canons
This would be similar to the text of the New Testament:
“And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew 2:23)
The reason why Christians have not been able to find that particular prophecy is because the above text said it was: ‘spoken’ by the prophets not necessarily that it was written by the prophets.
Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom offers a possible perspective.
This Archbishop of the Latin Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox Christians offers an interesting perspective.
“We see here the cause why the angel also, putting them at ease for the future, restores them to their home. And not even this simply, but he adds to it a prophecy, That it might be fulfilled, says he, which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.Matthew 2:23.”
“And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; Jeremiah 36:23 the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene.” -Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom
Thus, if what Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom says of ‘The Nazarene’ is true than it is likewise that this could be the case for ‘Ahmad’. Namely:
“For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces.”
This argument merely demonstrates that the absence of “Ahmad” from the New Testament does not disprove the Qur’anic claim.
Did Jesus ever write anything?
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. (John 8:6-8)
The assumption is that Jesus (as) wrote what he spoke: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Yet, we have no idea what he wrote the second time.
Not only this but may Allah (swt) reward brother Ammar in the comments section. He had reminded me that even the text that alleges Jesus (as) wrote something in the sands is a forgery.
The story is a clear forgery. Wasn’t found in the 4th century manuscripts.
The New Testament also mentions that Jesus said things that were not recorded.
“After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. ” (Luke 2:43-46)
Luke does not record any questions that Jesus asked! So this is clear evidence that there are indeed things that Jesus said that are not captured nor recorded by the New Testament.
Since Jesus (as) didn’t really write anything it makes sense we wouldn’t find anything written concerning “Ahmad”. And even if he did write something, we have no evidence it was preserved.
However, note the above text does state that Jesus (as) said:
“Oh children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad.” (Qur’an 61:6)
This is more than sufficient for those who believe. Allah (swt) said that Jesus (as) said it and that is enough for the Muslims.
We are not required to go beyond this. ⬆️⬆️⬆️
Though, for those Christians who are sincere we will endeavor to give them some things to reflect over.
What you are about to read is simply food for thought for those inquiring into the matter.
The New Testament teaches that Jesus never claimed to be the last Prophet.
Jesus (as) never claimed to be the last prophet. That admission in and of itself already is an argument in favour of our proposition. It does not necessarily prove it; however it is a point in favour of our proposition.
Think about this. When other Christian denominations get into debates and discussions with Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) they never shut down the Mormons with saying: “Well, Joseph Smith can’t be a Prophet because Jesus said there would be no more.” If that were so the matter would be an open and shut case.
This is a significant point in favour of the Islamic position.
If Jesus never claimed to be the last prophet, then:
There is no theological barrier to another prophet coming after him. Nothing in Jesus’s teaching rules this out.
First, Jesus himself didn’t shut down the possiblity of true prophets or even other messiahs coming!
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
Jesus could have closed the door by stating, “there will be no Messiah after me”. He didn’t. He could have said, “There will be no prophet after me.” He didn’t.
The New Testament gives many examples of prophets who came after Jesus.
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (Acts 13:1)
And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words.” (Acts 15:32)
“And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.” (Acts 21:10)
What has passed is more than sufficient to answer the objections of those who attack the Qur’an 61:6. We can see that the Qur’an says that it was something that Jesus (as) spoke and it doesn’t say it was written. We can also see that the New Testament does not have a definite statement about Jesus (as) being the last prophet.
However, for those Christians who like to reflect we will present more information to reflect upon.
Discussing the Identiy and the Prophecy of the Comforter/Advocate.
Why does the identify of the Comforter need clarification?
Now notice something about this text in John 14:26. Notice that the identity of The Comforter seems to be a matter of ambiguity. This ambiguity is followed up by the clarification: ‘Which is the Holy Spirit’
Now to be clear of the Greek manuscripts that we currently know about John 14:26 is read as: “The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit.” We are saying this in the interest of transparency and not to over state the case.
However, the very presence of this clarification suggests that the identity of the Paraclete was not self-evident to the original readers. If the meaning were obvious, no clarification would be needed.
What we are going to present is justification to show that this is a scribal insertion. As you can read the text on the left is quite intelligible without the addition ‘which is the Holy Spirit‘.
Some Early Church Fathers saw the possibility of the Paraclete being a reference to a human being.
The Montanists professed to be prophets and to speak under divine inspiration. Their founder, Montanus, claimed to be the Paraclete, the “Comforter,” or Helper, of John, chapter 14. Tertullian became a Montanist before he died.”
Source: (Edgar J Goodspeed How Came The Bible pg. 67.)
Eusebius explicitly states that some “boasted that Montanus was the Paraclete”
Prima Qur’an Comment: Tertullian and Monatanus were early church fathers who played a crucial role in the development of the New Testament text Christians have today. So if such learned men saw the possibility of the Paraclete referring to a human being then who are we to say?
The Christians will claim thath Montanist did not claim that Montanus himself was the Paraclete. Instead, they believed the Holy Spirit spoke through Montanus and his prophetesses. As one can see from the comments with a Christian below there are debates on ratherMontanist theology was monolithic. Sources note distinctions between Monarchian and non-Monarchian Montanist.
“The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.” Source: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History volume 5 chapter 14
“Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit.”
Source: (The Anchor Bible, 1970, Volume 29A, p.1135)
“The Paraclete is a parallel figure to Jesus himself; and this conclusion is confirmed in the fact that the title is suitable for both. It is clear from 14:16 that the source thought there were sending of two Paracletes, Jesus and his successor, the one following the other”
Source: (The Gospel of John a Commentary, Rudolf Bultmann, p. 567)
The word Paraclete is used in the New Testament to refer to a human being
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not and if any man sin, we have an advocate (Parakleton) Παράκλητον with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous) (1st John 2:1)
Note: The first time the word Paraclete is used is in reference to a man, Jesus.
Jesus (as) mentions that the Paraklete will be like him -and not unlike him.
“If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will pray for the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον, that HE may abide with you forever.” (John 14:15-16)
‘Another‘- the Greek word Allon means another of the same kind.
The ‘allon Parakleton‘ means in addition to himself another messenger, not heteros, another of a different kind!
If Jesus (as) meant a comforter of a different kind he would have used the Greek word heteron meaning-another of a different kind. The Greek word heteron is where we get the word heterosexual.
An example of the Greek word heteros being used.
“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ another (heteron) ἕτερον gospel.” (Galatians 1:6-9)
(Here the Greek word another (heteron) is another of a different kind.)
A derivative of the word Paraclete is also used to reference a human being.
“Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which is translated as “son of encouragement (parakleseos)” (Acts 4:36)
This is such a very curious text that is full of obfuscation. So we have an individual named Joseph, which is being called ‘Barnabas’ by the apostles. Which in turn is being translated as: The son of encouragement [Parakleseos].
Does the Holy Spirit hear and speak?
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
HEAR– The Greek verb (akousei) means to perceive audible sounds.
SPEAK-The Greek verb ; (lalesei) means to speak, to emit sounds.
So this HE has to be able to hear audibly and tell verbally.
The two Greek words Akousei and Lalesei refer to a concrete being with speech organs.
Recall the following text:
” But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)
Ask a Christiain does the Holy Spirit speak? Ask him (The Holy Spirit) to speak then!
Does (John 16:12-13) apply to the Holy Spirit? No!
A) Shall not speak of Himself.
B) Whatso ever He shall here is what he will speak.
This cannot be a reference to the Holy Spirit as Christians understand it.
The Qur’an is the created speech of Allah and and the Blessed Prophet (saw) is the mouthpiece of this created speech.
“By the star when it goes down your companion is neither astray nor being misled, nor does he say of his own desire. It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one mighty in power.” (Qur’an 53:1-5)
Another point is if we reflect upon the above text it presents problems for Christian theology.
“For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.”
How would the speech of the Spirit be different than the speech of the Father in essence?
Why would the Holy Spirit need to be told what to say when his knowledge is the same as the knowledge of the father in essence?
Remember Christians cannot use the fully deity/full man argument like they can for Jesus. The Holy Spirit does not have two natures as the Dyophysitist (majority of Christianity) claim about Jesus.
So the text of (John 16:12-13) does not necessarily need to be about a man. However, it is equally not possible for it to be about the Holy Spirit-at least not as Christians today understand it.
Say, “Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel should know that he revealed this to your heart by Allah’s Will, confirming what came before it—a guide and good news for the believers.” (Qur’an 2:97)
Angel Gabriel hears from Allah and speaks to the prophets. This is exactly what angels do: they receive and deliver messages. Gabriel is a created being who hears the command of Allah.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has historically struggled with the subordination question. The text of John 16:13 seems to imply a subordinate figure. A figure who hears and speaks, who receives rather than originates. This fits Gabriel perfectly.
Jesus (as) constantly refers to the Paraclete as ‘He’ and not ‘It’.
When one goes back and looks at all the text Jesus consistently used the masculine pronoun ‘He’, however, Spirit in Greek is used in the neuter gender which could be he, she or simply it.
lLet us look at various translations of John 1:32.
Notice that the King James version translates the neutral gender as ‘it’ where as in the New King James version they switch it to ‘He’. The other versions also make it masculine gender as ‘He’, or ‘himself’. The New International Version is the best translation remaining non committal in the gender specification.
“Likewise the Spirit also keeps our infirmities: For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)
The above passages show the Holy Spirit as neuter gender which means passages can translate the Holy Spirit as She, He, It. Whereas it is clear that the Paraklete is only referenced as ‘He’.
Recall the point about Jesus calling the Paraklete as (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον
Another of the same kind, the same genus. The Holy Spirit can be her, him, or it. Jesus is not reference as ‘her’ or it’.
Another reason why (The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit) is a scribal insertion.
The New Testament claims Jesus must go away in order for the Holy Spirit to come.
Jesus (as) is reported to make the following claim:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIM unto you.” (John 16:7)
Yet, the same New Testament clearly shows The Holy Spirit concurrent with Jesus.
So Jesus has to depart in order for this Paraklete to come. Based upon this admission the Paraklete cannot be not the Holy Spirit!
The reason why the Paraklete cannot be the Holy Spirit is because Jesus (as) was around when he was around. Ample text make this abundantly clear.
“And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.” (Luke 3:23)
(Jesus didn’t have to go anywhere!)
“And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Luke 4:1)
(Again Jesus and Holy Spirit are present together.)
“Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, So I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:21-22)
(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)
John was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was even born, which is unlike Jesus who had to receive the Holy Spirit after baptism. The point being John (being filled with the Holy Spirit) was around Jesus.
(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)
So all these text prove that this Paraklete cannot by the Holy Spirit as Jesus (as) has been around when the Paraklete has been around.
However, Jesus (as) mentions that he needs to go in order to come. This is also an indirect proof that Jesus (as) is dead and not like some have imagined that he is alive in the heavens.
Conclusion.
Jesus departing. These texts are explicit and have proven to be a problem for Christians. The only thing the Christian can do is to say that the Muslims do not understand these texts. Then the Christian only offers an interpretation of what is obviously clear text.
If the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, then Jesus was wrong to say the Paraclete would only come after his departure. Either the text is inconsistent, or the identification is incorrect.
John 16:12-13 Does this refer to a Prophet to come or the Spirit of Truth?
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
So a Christian may object that this can be a reference to a Prophet because the word spirit is clearly used. However, that is because the word ‘spirit’ is being used as a metonymy for a Prophet. It has been used in the following verse in such a way:
“Beloved believe not every SPIRIT (pneumati) πνεύματι , but try the SPIRITS (pneumata) πνεύματα whether they are of God: Because many false PROPHETS are gone out into the world. Hereby know you the SPIRIT of God: Every SPIRIT that confessed that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God:” (1 John 4:1-6)
So you can see that Spirits/Prophets are used interchangeably. So that objection is answered.
However, Muslims can be charitable and agree that this does indeed refer to the Holy Spirit.
Al-Rūḥ Al-Amīn (Trustworthy Spirit)mentioned in the Qur’an.
“‘Which the trustworthy spirit brought down into your heart so that you may be one of the warners.” (Qur’an 26:193-194)
“Say, “The holy spirit has brought it down from your Lord with the truthto reassure the believers, and as a guide and good news for those who submit.” (Qur’an 16:102)
Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.
By admission Jesus is not guiding you into all truth. There is one who comes after him that does this.
This creates a problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority.
This creates a problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.
This is circular because:
The Church’s authority depends on the Bible
The Bible’s authority depends on the Church
Neither can independently validate the other
One thing that the Holy Spirit has never guided the Church on.
Here is a major point that the according to the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, The Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Baptist that the Holy Spirit has never guided any of them on.
You see the above Christian groups will tell you that God is one being in three persons. That these three persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They will tell you that the name of the son is Jesus. They will tell you that the name of the Father is Yahweh. But they will never tell you what the name of the Holy Spirit is. Why is that?
Why can they give us the name of the Father and the name of the Son but not the name of the Holy Spirit?
We can put Christian claims to the test in real time.
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that ask receives; and he that seeks shall find; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8)
So to any Christian on Earth. from any denomination. ask the Holy Spirit to reveal his name to you then. There is not justifiable reason why he shouldn’t.
Christian objections to some Muslim claims.
Now given that some Muslims use (John 16:12-13) as a reference to the coming of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) we will look at some of their ojections and see what is a sound Christiain objection and what is not a sound objection.
1st Christian objection.
“The Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:17)
It cannot be said that Prophet Muhammed (saw) will live inside anyone. This is unless we use some strained metaphor about his teachings living inside of us. However, it is best not to be like the Christians who use truly strained readings of their text. So this is a sound Christiain objection.
However, the above text is contradicted by the following:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIMunto you.” (John 16:7)
The Holy Spirit can’t both live with the disciples and be present in their midst and Jesus also needs to depart from the disciples in order to send the Holy Spirit. This is not adding up.
The New Testament does not record Jesus baptizing any of his disciples.
““I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
Again, Jesus can’t be baptizing anyone with the Holy Spirit especially if it is expedient that he (Jesus) goes away.
The text of the Bible contradict the position of the Orthodox Church.
“In the Mystery of Chrismation (Gr. chrismatis,“anointing”), the newly baptized Orthodox Christian receives the Holy Spirit through anointing with oil by the bishop or priest. From the earliest times, the Church practiced Holy Chrismation immediately following Baptism. This same practice held, whether the newly baptized was an adult or an infant. Western churches (like Roman Catholics and Anglicans), in contrast, usually reserve Baptism and Chrismation for those who reach “the age of reason”.
“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:1-2)
So were these disciples unbaptized and performing baptism? If they were baptized why didn’t they receive the Holy Spirit then and there?
Not only this but why isn’t anyone asking the obvious. Where in the hell did the idea of baptism even come from? None of the Old Testament prophets were ever baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The practice is completely alien to the Tanach. Christianity is not in continuity with the Old Testament teachings at all.
2nd. Christian objection.
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all (πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα) that I have told you.” (John 14:26)
First notice the need for clarity. The Comforter, the Holy Spirit. So would we know that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit without the text giving this clarifying remark?
That being said Muhammed (saw) did not come in the name of Jesus. Why would he? So that part is problematic.
What is not problematic is that this Comforter will remind them of what Jesus told them.
This means that there would be some lapse in regard to what Jesus taught. Ironically that would include this very passages in which Jesus is supposed to clarify the role of the Comforter as well as it’s identify.
πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα
The Greek word hypomnēskō unequivocally means “to remind.” It presupposes a lapse in memory.
A reminder is only necessary if something has been forgotten. If the disciples perfectly remembered everything Jesus taught, the Comforter’s role of “reminding” them would be redundant. Therefore, the text logically implies that:
Some of Jesus’s teachings were lost or forgotten.
The Comforter would come to restore or bring back what was lost.
If the Comforter needed to “remind” the disciples, then some teachings were at risk of being lost. This undermines the idea of a perfectly preserved tradition.
The Gospel of John itself (John 21:25) states: “There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
This is a clear admission that the Gospel accounts are selective, not comprehensive.
If the Gospel writers themselves admit that they did not record everything Jesus did or said, then the Comforter’s role of “reminding” becomes even more significant: the Comforter will restore what was not recorded, ensuring the essential teachings were not lost.
The text of John 14:26 is an admission that:
Jesus taught more than what is recorded.
The disciples were at risk of forgetting what he taught.
The Comforter would bring back what was lost.
This is exactly what Allah (swt) says:
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that which they were reminded. So we caused amonghtem animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
3rd. Christian objection.
“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15:26)
The Christian objection is sound. Why would Jesus be the one to send the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw). However, as we saw from (John 14:26) it is the father who will send not Jesus. So which is it?
4th Chrisitan objection.
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever.” (John 14:16)
The problem comes from the word ‘forever’. The Christian will object and ask if the advocate is a reference to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) how is he with the believers forever?
This is answered by a number of ways.
“To the roots of the mountains I went down, to the land whose bars closed upon me forever. Yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.” (Jonah 2:6)
Jonah was not literally in the land of the dead forever; “forever” means for an extended, indefinite period.
“I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)
Jesus is not physically present but Christians could say they feel his presence or that his teachings live on with them. The same can be said of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).
It seems rather strange that the other Gospel writers have no mention about this coming Paraklete. Lastly, their remains some curiosity in the retention of the word Paraclete in the Hebrew and Aramaic translations.
The Qur’an 61:6 and the use of a type of literary device to that would be akin to an enthymeme.
“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD.” (Qur’an 61:6)
Do you ever wonder why the verse does not say: ”Giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being MUHAMMED?”
Muhammed comes from the triconsonantal Semitic root H-M-D.
The spelling of the word is different but the meaning is the same.
Jesus (as) did not speak Arabic and so what ever he did say would be in Hebrew or Aramaic and not Greek nor Arabic.
What ever prophecy Jesus (as) made would either be ‘Ahmad’ or the equivalent of it’s meaning.
Allah (swt) by using the word ‘Ahmad’ instead of the word ‘Muhammed’ has given us a type of enthymeme by which those interested can investigate the matter. That is to say it is possible that the scribes
“But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places (yuharifuna l-kaima ‘an mawadi’ihi) and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).” (Qur’an 5:13)
What may have been the word in Hebrew or Aramaic?
In the above text we can see the word transliterated as: Mahamaddim. They have translated the word as description ‘lovely.
In the Orthodox Jewish Bible they have put the transliterated word as: Machamaddim and have translated it as: (altogether desirable)
Again a different translation this time we get: “wholly desirable” and we can see that the is a masculine noun pronounced as Machmad. The word origin for this is chamad.
By the way do yourself a favour and copy those Hebrew words and put them in Google translate and listen to how they sound.
Notice that the word in Hebrew is to be desired, delighted in, to covet, to be pleased with, and than look at the Arabic equivalent that they give! With its meaning to praise to eulogize.
Look at the Arabic word that they give.
This in and of itself is not a proof, but it is an intriguing piece of evidence that may point to a preserved remnant of the original prophecy.
May Allah (swt) open the eyes and hearts of those who are sincere.
For further reading on topics in relation to Christianity you may want to read the following:
The above article shows us how Islam is a very cohesive, coherent and robust understanding of dealing with those people (that are claimed) not to receive a Messenger/Prophet.
We also have shown that Allah (swt) clearly mentioned that he set rites up for all peoples and that he has indeed sent a Prophet to all peoples.
Christianity, the religion that has a vision of God wherein Prophets and Messengers were not sent to all mankind has very often struggled to deal with this.
They have no concept of the fitra, instead all mankind is fallen, (We know you are not on board with this interpretation Church of Christ-Campbellites) so, We will make the exception.
To us this very question exposes the theological and philosophical mess of Christianity.
As regards Christianity. Is this a huge theological problem for Christianity?
Well, this would depend on the type of Christian that you ask. Not Surprising many Christians have a very straight forward response to this. That is that if God wanted the message of the Gospel of Christ Jesus to reach those people he would have. Therefore if they are damned to eternity in hellfire this is the will of God.
Mostly Christians of the Calvinist persuasion are quite o.k with the idea of people in hellfire forever for never even hearing about Jesus. When Christians ask these questions to their teachers it is because they are struggling with the justice of God in such scenarios.
For example:
John MacArthur whom is a believer in hard determinism was very to the point. You can’t receive salvation except through the name of Christ. Yet he goes on to describe the self evident nature of God, but stops short of telling us how exactly this connects a person to the Gospel?
Let’s think for example people who lived all over the world con-current to the first 15 minutes after the alleged death of Jesus on a Patibulum. It is not conceivable that the gospel reached these people.
Than John MacArthur goes on to categorically rebuke other Christian views that would try to claim such people are saved (a part from Christ Jesus) in the same way people were in the TNCH (Christians call it -the Old Testament).
McArthur also quoted the following text:
“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)
So now we will see how top Christian Apologist William Lane Craig deals with this question.
Now for those who do not know William Lane Craig does not believe that God wills and makes people to do evil (like Calvinist do); rather, he is a Molinist.
We will link to Dr. Craig’s article so you can get an understanding of this view:
Skip to 0:10 seconds to avoid hearing music in the intro.
“Now that does not mean that someone can be saved apart from the work of Christ. What it would mean is that the benefits of Christ death could be applied to someone without his conscious knowledge of Christ.” -William Lane Craig
Prima Qur’an comments: So just let that sink in! WoW! You really wonder how this camp will deal with things like:
“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)
Now, we could counter by mentioning the mute. However, even than it can be seen that this is a conscious choice.
Than William Lane Craig gives the store away to atheist when he proclaims:
“Rather than live up to his moral law they plunge themselves into immorality and degeneracy and so find themselves condemned before God just on the basis of his general revelation in nature and conscious.” -William Lane Craig
No Craig, stop trying to sell Sam Harris’ book, the Moral Landscape. God is known via reason but moral code and moral law is not known except via revelation! -i.e revealed scriptures, prophets, messengers. Tell us do you believe that morality is known a part from these?
Natural revelation never tells them that God came as a man, lived a sinless perfect life and fulfilled all the righteous demands of the Law, died upon a cross to atone for His people’s sins, and rose from the dead three days later for their justification.
“For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made. As a result, people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)
So Craig did not really answer that woman’s question at all. He waffled. It is possible but in reality not likely at all.
So the question of God’s justice in regard to the Ahl Al Fatrah remains.
We have heard a pastor once say, “If someone can get into heaven without knowing Christ, then the worst thing you can do to them is tell them about Jesus.”
This same logic applies to the Ash’ari creed who believe that people who never heard about Islam enter into heaven no questions asked.
The last thing on Earth we would want would be the spread of the teachings of Islam, if that were the case!
In one conference of Calvinist it seems one of the Pastors had a heightened sense of the racial distributions of God’s mercy.
In other words why are certain demographics seemingly favoured by God to hear the truth?
People groups , Native Americans, Polynesian peoples, Sub Sahara Africans, Chinese pretty much most of them died not knowing Christ Jesus at all. So surely God has shown great mercy to Hebrews, Caucasians, and People of the Middle East in general.
We could have titled this article: The Scandal of Christian Exclusivism: God’s Favor or Geographic Lottery?
Calvinists have no satisfying answer for why God’s sovereign will seems to align so neatly with geography and ethnicity.
“I have no answer to the question why uh vast numbers and not just in very definable people groups that we mentioned in this question but there are people in your street who’ve actually never heard of Christ. Never heard a presentation of the Gospel. It’s not just people groups. There are people who live in contemporary America.”
@7:03 “And I think we need to be very careful about approaching any issue and in particularly this one with a premise that God must act in this way. God is not bound to show mercy to any individual or any collection of individuals. So.So God is not bound to show mercy to an individual but he’s not bound to show mercy to a particular people group either.”
As Muslims we can agree that God is not bound to show mercy to anyone for that matter but what Muslims would assert is that God has asserted that he sent a messenger to every people.
Muslims would also assert that God would not expect every to make a fist with their hand and than punish someone born without hands for failing to do so. This is essentially the Christian view. The Christian view is essentially God creating goats with no wings and than cursed them for not flying.
Christians do have text like the following:
“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4)
Well it would stand to reason he would have some type of system to deliver on this. Eventually to deal with this dilemma some Christians had to come up with a belief in God having three different wills.
Decretive will: What God actually decrees (not all saved)
Prescriptive will: What God commands (all should believe)
Permissive will: What God allows (people to reject)
Such a doctrine is not Sola scriptura. It is theological gymnastics to avoid the plain meaning of the text.
This is theological gymnastics to avoid the plain meaning of the text.
“Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves.” (Qur’an 10:44)
“Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.” (Qur’an 4:40)
So, as we have seen Christians will quote their sources to support their various positions.
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:18)
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
“As the Lord said to Nicodemus, Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, a person will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5)
Or is the above statement not so true?
Because this is flatly contradicted by the information we receive in Luke:
“Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)
So some would argue that an exception is made, or there are situations where there are exceptions. So which one is truly the truth?
But than you have to wonder about the debate around unbaptized babies?
The Catholic Church had to go into a full retreat on this issue, because after further reflection the doctrine is quite dark. Secondly Islam was absolutely demolishing the Catholic Church and continues to do so in the Philippines and in South America over this very doctrine!
The Catholic Church & The Doctrine of Invincible Ignorance. Jesus is not the only way to heaven.
As such it is defined as:
“Invincible ignorance” is a state in which people — such as pagans, non-Christians and children — are ignorant of Christ’s message as laid out in the Gospels not because they refuse to believe, but rather because they’ve not yet had an opportunity to hear and experience it
The Position of the Catholic Church?
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.
This teaching is crystal clear that Jesus is not the only way to heaven!
This is extremely devestating in two ways.
First it contradicts much of their sacred text or writings.
It Contradicts Jesus’ Own Words
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” (John 3:18)
Second it makes mission work dangerous.
If people can be saved through “invincible ignorance,” then:
Those who never hear the Gospel are safer than those who do.
Missionaries are potentially damning people by removing their ignorance.
The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) becomes a curse rather than a blessing.
It definitely contradicts what Augustine had stated on the matter.
Right under the section that explitly states:
Chapter 2 [II.] Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life
…before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way — what must human nature do…but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been itself created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: Then Christ died in vain. Galatians 2:21 For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain. If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath— in a word, from punishment — except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ (St Augustine, On Nature and Grace, Chapter 2).
There are very deep divides in the Orthodox Church on the issue of people being saved a part from the redeeming nature of Jesus.
God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33)
Some will argue that no one is saved by “ignorance”, meaning that they will be harmed by the additional knowledge of Christ Jesus, or some how saved by the law of nature.
“No one is condemned on the ground of not believing in something they never heard, but on the ground of their sinfulness.”
To which we reply on what consistent basis of justice are they not given the same opportunity to hear the saving gospel?
Indeed why are entire tribes and ethnic groups given over to ruin because of this?
Even than those advocates in the Orthodox Church make exception to this so called “Law of Nature.” Those against Invincible Ignorance will make exception when it comes to the Theotokos (Mother of God) whom they mean to be Mary the Mother of Jesus. The Roman Catholics are with them on the sinless nature of Mary.
They do this to avoid the issue of sin being inherited. Protestants do not make Mary an exception. But then we get into an infinite loop issue that if Mary did not inherit sin, than why not make her father sinless for her to escape the conundrum in the same way Mary is made sinless to escape the conundrum for Jesus.
Protestants have avoided this altogether; namely because little baby fetus Jesus was receiving nourishment from a ‘sinful’ woman. It was her ‘sinful’ body that providing for his sinless body.
The Belief of Jesus descending into hell to save the Old Testament prophets.
“After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits-to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water.” (1 Peter 3:19-20)
Peter once wrote of Paul’s letters:
“There are some things in them that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16).
Meaning Jesus did not keep good on his promise.
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:13)
Meaning that the Holy Spirit did not make these scriptures clear.
However, we can say the same thing of Peter’s letters and especially the above text.
This rather ambiguous text of ((1 Peter 3:19-20) is used by many to say that this is how the Old Testament Prophets eventually were saved. In spite of what you heard about the Prophets in the Old Testament they all went to hell. They have to if everyone who does not believe in Jesus is to be saved. So this doctrine came about.
Even though we have many other text that would contradict this point blank.
“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God” (Genesis 6:9)
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe a Non Christian who never confessed faith in Jesus Christ is saved!
John of Damascus said that God freed Trajan from Hell after the prayers of Saint Gregory the Great!
“Further, the Damascene in the same sermon relates that Gregory, while praying for Trajan, heard a voice from heaven saying to him: “I have heard thy voice, and I pardon Trajan; : and of this fact the Damascene adds in the same sermon, “the whole East and West are witnesses. ” Yet it is clear that Trajan was in hell, since “he put many martyrs to a cruel death” [De his qui fide dormierunt]. Therefore the suffrages of the Church avail even for those who are in hell.”
This particular incident comes to us by different ways with some interesting omissions and additions. In one rendition Trajan is physically resurrected since without physical baptism, one who lived after Christ can be saved.
Another view is that a soul can be in hell and be quit of all pain (maybe just roaming around watching everyone else suffer for their sins) who knows what he does in his spare time).
There is a whole book one can read about this idea of Christians saints that could pray for people to be released from hell!
To us it is clear that Christianity does not have a cohesive position on this very important question. The Orthodox, Catholics, & Protestants each seem to have views that once probed ends up causing problems for other doctrinal positions.
The morewe explore and look into the disparate views of the Christian tradition we can’t help but to see how chillingly distant and dark their vision of the divine truly is.
We would not be surprised if one of them ever wrote a treaties entitled: “The Unloved Parts of God.”
“Or like the darkness in a deep sea, covered by waves upon waves, topped by clouds. Darkness upon darkness! If one stretches out their hand, they can hardly see it. And whoever Allah does not bless with light will have no light!” (Qur’an 24:40)
If you think the above is a mess wait until you read how much of a mess their doctrine of salvation is!
This section will be miscellaneous information on a wide range of topics. This section does not necessarily reflect the views or attitudes of either the Ibadi school or adherents of the school.
Do note some links are broken. We are in the process of restoring those links.
Allah willing we will continue to update this section and organize it accordingly as well:
“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produuce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:111)
﷽
In this blog post we look into the fascinating eyewitness testimony of the Christian faith as well as its historical corraboration.
First we start with what Christians call the apostle Paul.
“This is the third time I am coming to you. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Corinthians13:1)
“One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deuteronomy 19:15)
The context and intention behind his application are specific:
The Original Context: In Deuteronomy, this law was designed to protect the accused in an Israelite court from false accusations, requiring physical or corroborating human witnesses for a criminal conviction.
Paul’s Application: Paul is applying this principle to establish the validity of his apostolic authority.
Paul’s biodata.
He has no provable biography.
We have no idea who Paul’s parents are.
Was Paul recorded in a Roman census?
We have no record of this.
Paul has no provable connection to Prophet Abraham alayhi s-salām
Paul has no provable connection to the tribe of Benjamin.
“I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.” (Romans 11:1)
“Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee.” (Philippians 3:5)
This is a claim without evidence.
No genealogy is provided.
No Benjaminite registry exists to verify it.
No contemporary document outside his letters corroborates it.
In the Hebrew Bible, tribal identity was patrilineal and documented. Paul gives no father’s name, no clan, no ancestral town in Benjaminite territory (e.g., Gibeah, Mizpah). It is an unverifiable claim.
Ask a Christian, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican to give you Paul’s genealogy traceable back to Benjamin. They can’t!
Paul and his name.
“Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,…” (Acts 13:9)
If we say, “Paul says his name is Paul,” that proves nothing. Anyone can name themselves. Without external verification (e.g., Roman census records, contemporary letters from others, a tombstone, etc.), it’s just self-testimony.
“Studied under Gamaliel” – no evidence from Gamaliel.
“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.” (Acts 22:3)
Gamaliel was a famous rabbi (Acts 5:34–40). He is mentioned in later Jewish tradition (Mishnah). But:
Gamaliel never mentions Paul.
No rabbinic text lists Paul as a student of Gamaliel.
No contemporary records from Gamaliel’s academy name Paul.
Acts 22:3 is the only source for this claim. Again, Paul (or Luke writing for Paul) is the sole witness. By the legal principle Paul cited, this is inadmissible.
What is the proof that anyone met the ‘historical’ Paul?
Paul mentioned outside of his own writings?
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Beyond the fact that the authorship of 2 Peter is highly disputed there is no mention about meeting Paul here.
If we grant that it was indeed written by Peter, the passage doesn’t mention anything about meeting Paul in person, it just mentions Paul’s letters. So it’s a possible witness that Peter believed a person named Paul wrote some letters.
Then we have the following claim in Acts.
“When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus.” (Acts 9:26-27)
This is contradicted by the following:
“I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:17)
So in this instance you have Paul’s own testimony versus a statement made about him some many years later.
Christianity demands I bet my soul on ONE guy, who claims to have met Jesus on the road to Damascus, with an undisclosed number of anonymous witnesses, witnesses who never wrote anything. That is a hard pass!
Paul’s own letters—which are our primary sources—never mention the Damascus road experience with companions present at all. He speaks of his encounter in intensely personal terms, and the elaborate narrative with Ananias, the blinding, and the companions only appears in Acts, written by someone else decades later.
No one witnessed Paul’s “vision”.
In Acts 9, the men traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no one (Acts 9:7). In Acts 22, Paul says they saw the light but did not hear the voice (Acts 22:9). These are contradictory accounts of what the witnesses experienced. But crucially:
None of those men saw Jesus.
None of them testified to Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to Paul.
They never wrote anything, and we don’t even know their names.
Who witnessed Paul receiving revelation from Jesus Christ?
“I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12)
Paul claims that he is receiving his revelation direct from Jesus rather than from human teachers who actually knew Jesus.
Who witnessed this?
Who witnessed Paul receving his revelation?
What condition did these witnesses describe?
1 Corinthians 15:3–8 :The testimony of Paul under the microscope.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared (ōphthē – ὤφθη) to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared (ōphthē) to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared (ōphthē) to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared (ōphthē) to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Christians often quote this section of the New Testament as if it is some impressive tour de force, about historical Christianity often do not realize how historically weak the following claims are.
Paul claims“That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” That is not eye witness testimony. That is an appeal to contested interpretations of the Tanakh.
Paul claims “and that he appeared (ōphthē) to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve.” The New Testament contains two letters attributed to Peter (1 Peter and 2 Peter). In these writings, he (Peter) does not explicitly claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus.
Then to the twelve.
Douay-Rheims (Catholic): “And that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven.” (Note: eleven, not twelve)
King James Version: “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.”
Codex Bezae & some Old Latin manuscripts: Also read “eleven” instead of “twelve.”
“then to the twelve” is also incorrect. There was no living group called “the Twelve” at that time. After Judas’s suicide and before Matthias, they were eleven. after Judas died and before Matthias was chosen (Acts 1:15–26), the group was technically eleven.
Some manuscripts (Codex Bezae, some Old Latin) -Douay Rheims says eleven. So if you are Catholic we can let you off the hook (this time).
“After that, he (ōphthē) appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep”
More than 500! Most of whom are still living?!!
What are their names Paul?
What did they write?
Where is their testimony?
Ask a Christian, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican to give you the names of these 500. Ask them to tell what those 500 wrote?
No early church father ever cites a single one of these 500 by name.
No hostile witness (e.g., Celsus, Porphyry, Lucian) ever says: “I checked with those 500 and they denied it.”
It’s an unfalsifiable claim, not a verifiable one. In any court of law, “I have 500 witnesses but I won’t tell you who they are” would be laughed out of the room.
“Then he (ōphthē)appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
Where does James claim in his book to have seen the resurrected Jesus?
“and last of all he (ōphthē) appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born” Paul uses that same word “ὤφθη (ōphthē) Paul uses the same verb for his own “vision” on Damascus road (1 Cor 15:8 – “as to one abnormally born”) and for the appearances to Peter, the Twelve, 500, James.
Paul uses the identical verb for his own visionary experience and for the others he mentioned. In Greek, no distinction is made in the text between a physical, bodily resurrection appearance and a visionary one. That is a theological inference, not a linguistic one.
Seeing that Paul did not meet the historical Jesus but only claimed to have saw him in a vision then Paul had no way of distinguishing his vision from theirs, so we cannot trust that theirs was physical either!
If Paul’s appearance was visionary, and he uses the same verb for the others, the burden is on the apologist to prove theirs was physical—not on us to prove it wasn’t. And they cannot, because no independent witness describes what Peter or James or the 500 saw in physical terms!
We have no independent attestation from any of those 500, no names, no writings. Paul’s appeal to “most are still alive” is rhetorically powerful but historically unverifiable!
There are no independent witnesses to the resurrection appearance Paul claims. Paul is bearing witness for himself — which Deuteronomy 19:15 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 explicitly forbid as sufficient evidence.
After wading through the works of apologists like Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Lee Strobel, and Gleason Archer, one comes to realize that the entire enterprise is nothing but gobbledygook.
Major Premise (Paul’s own stated rule).
“A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deuteronomy 19:15, quoted by Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:1)
Formalized: For any claim to be accepted as legally or factually established, there must be at least two independent, corroborating witnesses who are not the accused or the sole interested party.
Minor Premise (Paul’s claim)
Paul claims that Jesus appeared to him (1 Corinthians 15:8), that he received his gospel by revelation from Jesus (Galatians 1:12), and that this establishes his apostolic authority and the truth of Jesus’ resurrection.
Unnamed, unverifiable “500” witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) who left no written testimony.
No independent, identifiable, contemporaneous witness who saw what Paul claims.
(Applying the rule to Paul’s case)
Requirement
Does Paul meet it?
Two or more witnesses
No. Paul is the primary witness for his own vision/revelation.
Witnesses not identical with the accused
No. The accused (Paul) is testifying for himself.
Witnesses who can be named, examined, or cross-referenced
No. The 500 are unnamed. Acts’ author is anonymous and not contemporaneous.
Independent corroboration of the claimed event
No. No one else claims to have seen Jesus appear to Paul.
Testimony consistent across witnesses
No. Acts 9 vs. Acts 22 disagree on what the companions heard/saw. Galatians contradicts Acts on the Jerusalem visit.
Conclusion.
P1: According to Paul (citing Deuteronomy 19:15 and 2 Corinthians 13:1), no matter is to be established except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
P2: A witness, to be valid, must be independent of the person making the claim, identifiable, and capable of providing corroborating testimony.
P3: Paul’s claim to have received revelation from the risen Jesus is supported only by:
P4: None of these constitute two or three independent, identifiable, corroborating witnesses under the standard Paul himself invokes.
C: Therefore, by Paul’s own stated legal principle, his testimony is insufficient to establish the matter of Jesus’ resurrection appearance to him, his divine revelation, or his apostolic authority.
This is the historicity and eye witness testimony that the Christian faith hinges upon.
The belief in Paul and his testimony hinges upon self claims. Christians inform us that Jesus is reported to have said:
“If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true.” (John 5:31)
The theological trap for Christians.
If a Christian accepts John 5:31 as Scripture they now face an insoluble problem:
Either John 5:31 applies universally (including to Paul), in which case Paul’s self-witness is invalid.
Or John 5:31 does not apply universally, in which case Jesus’ own saying is not a binding principle—undermining the authority of the Gospel of John itself!
There is no consistent position where:
John 5:31 is true,
Paul’s self-witness is sufficient,
And the standard is applied fairly.
If Christianity’s central resurrection claim depends on Paul’s testimony, and Paul’s testimony fails his own test, then the honest inquirer cannot be faulted for rejecting Christianity outright.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
Prima Quran 