Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1259
Loc: St Bess, Jamaica
Offline
Noel, I will not continue further discussions on this thread or any of the other threads until i get a simple yes or no answer from you: is the Qur'an the Word of God or the devil?
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 506
Loc: Sacramento, California
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
Noel, I will not continue further discussions on this thread or any of the other threads until i get a simple yes or no answer from you: is the Qur'an the Word of God or the devil?
I already told you twice before, this is my third time telling you. I do not know where the Quran comes from, but I do know where the Bible comes from, but this is day number 3 and you can't answer a yes or no question. God provided a plan of salvation in the Bible:
Our problem is that our own sins condemn us to hell. The good news - the gospel - is that Jesus died for our sins. We answered the question, "What must I do?" and found that we must: Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that He was raised from the dead. Repent. Confess with the mouth that Jesus is Lord. Be immersed (in water) into Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. Repentance includes an actual change in behavior. Baptism is immersion in water, and it is essential to salvation. There is only one acceptable immersion - that is immersion into Christ through the medium of water as a result of an individual’s own desire to obey the gospel. If a person refuses to do God’s will, he will burn forever; if he does God’s will, he will live forever!
The Bible says there is only one way to Heaven Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
Good works cannot save you. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Trust Jesus Christ today! Here's what you must do: Admit you are a sinner. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23)
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Romans 5:12)
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (1 John 1:10)
Be willing to turn from sin (repent). Jesus said: "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:5)
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" (Acts 17:30)
Believe that Jesus Christ died for you, was buried, and rose from the dead. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners. Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:9)
Through prayer, invite Jesus into your life to become your personal Saviour. "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:10)
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Are you rejecting God's plan of salvation? yes or no only.
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 506
Loc: Sacramento, California
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
No. I am not rejecting God's plan for salvation.
Tman my friend, hope to call you my brother one day. Of all the living beings that dwell on planet Earth, one solitary creature was made “in the image of God.” On day six of His creative activity, God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26,27).
Mankind was not created in the physical image of God, of course, because God, as a Spirit Being, has no physical image (John 4:24; Luke 24:39; Matthew 16:17). Rather, mankind was fashioned in the spiritual, rational, emotional, and volitional image of God (Ephesians 4:24; John 5:39-40; 7:17; Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 7:15). Humans were superior to all other creatures. No other living being was given the faculties, the capacities, the capabilities, the potential, or the dignity that God instilled in each man and woman. Indeed, humankind is the peak, the pinnacle, and the apex, of God’s creation.
In its lofty position as the zenith of God’s creative genius, mankind was endowed with certain responsibilities. Men and women were to be the stewards of the entire Earth (Genesis 1:28). They were to glorify God in their daily existence (Isaiah 43:7). And, they were to consider it their “whole duty” to serve the Creator faithfully throughout their brief sojourn on the Earth (Ecclesiastes 12:13).
MAN’S PREDICAMENT: DISOBEDIENCE AND DEATH
Tman, unfortunately, the first man and woman used their volitional powers—and the free moral agency based on those powers—to rebel against their Maker. Finite man made some horribly evil choices, and so entered the spiritual state biblically designated as “sin.” The Old Testament not only presents in vivid fashion the entrance of sin into the world through Adam and Eve (Genesis 3), but also alludes to the ubiquity of sin within the human race when it says: “there is no man that sinneth not” (1 Kings 8:46). Throughout its thirty-nine books, the Old Covenant discusses time and again sin’s presence amidst humanity, and its destructive consequences. The great prophet Isaiah reminded God’s people: “Behold, Jehovah’s hand is not shortened that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear” (59:1-2).
The New Testament is no less clear in its assessment. The apostle John wrote: “Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Thus, sin is defined as the act of transgressing God’s law. In fact, Paul observed that “where there is no law, neither is there transgression” (Romans 4:15). Had there been no law, there would have been no sin. But God had instituted divine law. And mankind freely chose to transgress that law. Paul reaffirmed the Old Testament concept of the universality of sin (1 Kings 8:46) when he stated that “all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Tman, as a result, mankind’s predicament became serious indeed. Ezekiel lamented: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (18:20a). Once again, the New Testament writers reaffirmed such a concept. Paul wrote: “Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned” (Romans 5:12). He then added that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Years later, James would write: “But each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death” (1:14-15).
As a result of mankind’s sin, God placed the curse of death on the human race. While all men and women must die physically as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin, each person dies spiritually for his or her own sins. Each person is responsible for himself, spiritually speaking. Tman, the theological position which states that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin is false, that's foolishness. We do not inherit the guilt; we inherit the consequences. And there is a great difference between the two. Consider, as an illustration of this point, the family in which a drunken father arrives home late one evening, and in an alcoholic stupor severely beats his wife and children. His spouse and offspring suffer the consequences of his drunkenness, to be sure. But it would be absurd to suggest that they are guilty of it! The same concept applies in the spiritual realm. People die physically because of Adam’s sin, but they die spiritually because of their own personal transgression of God’s law. In Ezekiel 18:20, quoted earlier, the prophet went on to say: “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”
THE REALITY OF SIN
Stay with me now Tman, don't go anywhere. The reality of sin is all around us, is it not? Consider the ways in which mankind has been affected by sin.
Physically—Disease and death were introduced into this world as a direct consequence of man’s sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12).
Geophysically—Many features of the Earth’s surface that allow for such tragedies as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, violent thunderstorms, etc. can be traced directly to the Great Flood of Noah’s day (which came as the result of man’s sin, Genesis 6:5ff.).
Culturally—The numerous communication problems that man experiences, due to the multiplicity of human languages, are traceable to ambitious rebellion on the part of our ancestors (Genesis 11:1-9).
Psychologically—Man generally is without the peace of mind for which his heart longs (look at the number of psychiatrists in the Yellow Pages of any telephone book!). Isaiah opined: “They have made them crooked paths; whosoever goeth therein doth not know peace” (59:8; cf. 57:21).
Spiritually—By sinning, man created a chasm between himself and God (Isaiah 59:2). Unless remedied, this condition will result in man’s being unable to escape the “judgment of hell” (Matthew 23:33), and in his being separated from God throughout all eternity (Revelation 21:8; 22:18-19).
The key phrase in the discussion above is that man’s sin will result in an eternal separation from God unless remedied. The question then becomes: Has God provided such a remedy? Thankfully, the answer is: Yes, He has.
GOD’S REMEDY FOR SIN
Regardless of how desperate, or how pitiful, man’s condition has become, one thing is for certain: God had no obligation to provide a means of salvation for the ungrateful creature who so haughtily turned away from Him, His law, and His beneficence. The Scriptures make this apparent when they discuss the fact that angels sinned (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6), and yet “not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:16). The rebellious creatures that once inhabited the heavenly portals were not provided a redemptive plan. But man was! Little wonder the psalmist inquired: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:4, emp. added).
Tman, why would God go to such great lengths for mankind, when His mercy was not even extended to the angels that once surrounded His throne? Whatever answers may be proffered, there can be little doubt that the Creator’s efforts on behalf of sinful man are the direct result of pure love. As a loving God (1 John 4:8), He acted out of a genuine concern, not for His own desires, but instead for those of His creation. And let us be forthright in acknowledging that Jehovah’s love for mankind was completely undeserved. The Scriptures make it clear that God decided to offer salvation—our “way home”—even though we were ungodly, sinners, and enemies (note the specific use of those terms in Romans 5:6-10). The apostle John rejoiced in the fact that: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us” (1 John 4:10).
God’s love is universal, and thus not discriminatory in any fashion (John 3:16). He would have all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)—if they would be (John 5:40)—for He is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). And, Deity’s love is unquenchable. Read Romans 8:35-39 and be thrilled! Only man’s wanton rejection of God’s love can put him beyond the practical appropriation of heaven’s offer of mercy and grace.
God’s Plan In Preparation
Did God understand that man would rebel, and stand in eventual need of salvation from the perilous state of his own sinful condition? The Scriptures make it clear that He did. Inspiration speaks of a divine plan set in place even “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). After the initial fall of man, humankind dredged itself deeper and deeper into wickedness. When approximately a century of preaching by the righteous Noah failed to bring mankind back to God, Jehovah sent a worldwide flood to purge the Earth (Genesis 6-8). From the faithful Noah, several generations later, the renowned Abraham was descended, and, through him, eventually the Hebrew nation would be established. From that nation, the Messiah—God-incarnate—would come.
Some four centuries following Abraham, the Lord, through His servant Moses, gave to the Hebrews the written revelation that came to be known as the Law of Moses. Basically, this law-system had three purposes. First, its intent was to define sin and sharpen Israel’s awareness of it. To use Paul’s expression in the New Testament, the Law made “sin exceeding sinful” (Romans 7:7,13). Second, the law was designed to show man that he could not, by his own merit or efforts, save himself. For example, the Law demanded perfect obedience, and since no mere man could keep it perfectly, all stood condemned (Galatians 3:10-11). Thus, the Law underscored the need for a Savior—Someone Who could do for us what we were unable to do for ourselves. Third, in harmony with that need, the Old Testament pointed the way toward the coming of the Messiah. He was to be Immanuel—“God with us” (Matthew 1:23).
Mankind was prepared for the coming of the Messiah in several ways. Theophanies were temporary appearances of God in various forms (see Genesis 16:7ff.; 18:1ff.; 22:11ff., etc.). A careful examination of the facts leads to the conclusion that many of these manifestations were of the preincarnate Christ. In addition, the Old Testament contains types (pictorial previews) of the coming Messiah. For example, every bloody sacrifice was a symbol of the “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Finally, there are more than 300 prophecies containing countless minute details that speak of the coming Prince of Peace. These prophecies name the city in which He was to be born, the purpose of His earthly sojourn, and even the exact manner of His death. The simple fact is, Jehovah left no stone unturned in preparing the world for the coming of the One Who was to save mankind.
God’s Plan In Action
One of God’s attributes, as expressed within Scripture, is that He is an absolutely holy Being (see Revelation 4:8; Isaiah 6:3). As such, He simply cannot ignore the fact of sin. The prophet Habakkuk wrote: “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong” (1:13). Yet another of God’s attributes is that He is absolutely just. Righteousness and justice are the very foundation of His throne (Psalm 89:14). The irresistible truth arising from the fact that God is both holy and just is that sin must be punished!
If God were a cold, vengeful Creator (as some infidels wrongly assert), He simply could have banished mankind from His divine presence forever, and that would have been the end of the matter. But the truth is, He is not that kind of God! Our Creator is loving (1 John 4:8), and “rich in mercy” (Ephesians 2:4). Thus, the problem became: How could a loving, merciful God pardon rebellious humanity?
Paul addressed this very matter in Romans 3. How could God be just, and yet a justifier of sinful man? The answer: He would find someone to stand in for us— someone to receive His retribution, and to bear our punishment. That “someone” would be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He would become a substitutionary sacrifice, and personally would pay the price for human salvation. In one of the most moving tributes ever written to the Son of God, Isaiah summarized the situation like this:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all (53:5-6). Jehovah’s intent was to extend grace and mercy freely—through the redemptive life and death of His Son (Romans 3:24ff.). As a member of the Godhead, Christ took upon Himself the form of a man. He came to Earth as a human being (John 1:1-4,14; Philippians 2:5-11; 1 Timothy 3:16), and thus shared our full nature and life-experiences. He even was tempted in all points, just we are, yet He never yielded to that temptation (Hebrews 4:15).
But what has this to do with us? Since Christ was tried (Isaiah 28:16), and yet found perfect (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22), He alone could satisfy heaven’s requirement for justice. He alone could serve as the “propitiation” (atoning sacrifice) for our sins. Just as the lamb without blemish that was used in Old Testament sacrifices could be the (temporary) propitiation for the Israelites’ sins, so the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29) could be the (permanent) propitiation for mankind’s sins. In the gift of Christ, Heaven’s mercy was extended; in the death of the Lamb of God, divine justice was satisfied; and, in the resurrection of Christ, God’s plan was documented and sealed historically forever!
MANKIND’S APPROPRIATION OF GOD’S GIFT OF SALVATION
As wonderful as God’s gift of salvation is, there is one thing it is not. It is not unconditional. Mankind has a part to play in this process. While the gift of salvation itself is free (in the sense that the price levied already has been paid by Christ), God will not force salvation on anyone. Rather, man must—by the exercise of his personal volition and free moral agency—do something to accept the pardon that heaven offers. What is that “something”?
In His manifold dealings with mankind, Jehovah has stressed repeatedly the principle that man, if he would be justified, must live “by faith” (see Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). Salvation has been available across the centuries, conditioned upon God’s foreknowledge of the atoning death of Christ upon the Cross at Calvary (see Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 9:15-17; 10:1ff.). Yet “living by faith” never denoted a mere “mental ascent” of certain facts. Instead, “living by faith” denoted active obedience.
Faith consists of three elements: (1) an acknowledgment of historical facts; (2) a willingness to trust the Lord; and (3) a wholehearted submission (obedience) to the divine will. Further, it should be remembered that faith has not always—for all men, in all circumstances—required the same things. It always has required obedience, but obedience itself has not always demanded the same response.
For example, in God’s earliest dealings with men, obedient faith required that those men offer animal sacrifices at the family altar (Genesis 4:4). Later, God dealt with the nation of Israel, giving them the Law at Mount Sinai (Exodus 20). Under that Law, animal sacrifices continued, along with the observance of certain feast days and festivals. Acceptable faith, under whatever law that was then in force, demanded obedience to the will of God.
The Scriptures are clear that the “obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26) is based on the Word of God (Romans 10:13), and that both the faith and the obedience are demonstrated by action. Hebrews 11, in fact, devotes itself to an examination of that very concept. “By faith” Abel offered. “By faith” Noah prepared. “By faith” Abraham obeyed. “By faith,” Moses refused. And so on. Even the casual reader cannot help but be impressed with the heroes of faith listed in Hebrews 11:32-40, and the action they took because of their faith. Writing by inspiration, James observed that faith, divorced from obedience, is dead (James 2:26). What, then, is involved in this “obedience of faith” in regard to salvation? What must a person do to be saved?
Several critically important questions need to be asked here. First, where is salvation found? Paul told Timothy: “Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Timothy 2:10, emp. added).
Second, where are all spiritual blessings found? Spiritual blessings are found only “in Christ.” Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (emp. added).
Third, and most important, how, then, does one get “into Christ”? In other words, how does the alien sinner rid himself of his soul-damning sin? What “obedience of faith” is required to appropriate the free gift of salvation that places him “in Christ”?
THE ROAD HOME: SALVATION THROUGH THE “OBEDIENCE OF FAITH”
The only way to find the “road home” to heaven is to follow God’s directions exactly. There are numerous things God has commanded that a person do in order to enjoin the “obedience of faith” and thereby receive the free gift of salvation. According to God’s Word, in order to be saved a person must do the following.
First, the sinner must hear God’s Word (Romans 10:17). Obviously, one cannot follow God’s commands if he has not heard them, so God commanded that people hear what He has said regarding salvation.
Second, one who is lost cannot be saved if he does not believe what he hears. So, God commanded that belief ensue (John 3:16; Acts 16:31).
Third, one who is lost cannot obtain salvation if he is unwilling to repent of his sins and seek forgiveness (Luke 13:3). Without repentance he will continue in sin; thus, God commanded repentance.
Fourth, since Christ is the basis of our salvation, God commanded the penitent sinner to confess Him before men as the Son of God (Romans 10:9-10).
However, this is not all that God commanded. Hearing, believing, repentance, and confession will not rid one of his sin. The overriding question is: How does one get rid of sin? Numerous times within the pages of the New Testament, that question is asked and answered. The Jews who had murdered Christ, and to whom Peter spoke on the Day of Pentecost when he ushered in the Christian age, asked that question. Peter’s sermon had convicted them. They were convinced that they were sinners, and desperately in need of salvation at the hand of an almighty God. Their question then became: “...brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Peter’s response could not have been any clearer. He told them: “repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38). Saul, who later would become Paul, the famous apostle to the Gentiles, needed an answer to that same question. While on a trip to Damascus for the explicit purpose of persecuting Christians, Saul was blinded (see Acts 22). Realizing his plight, he asked: “What shall I do, Lord?” (Acts 22:10). When God’s servant, Ananias, appeared to Saul in the city, he answered Saul’s question by commanding: “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16).
What, then, is the correct biblical answer regarding how one rids himself of soul-damning sin? The biblical solution is that the person who has heard the gospel, who has believed its message, who has repented of past sins, and who has confessed Christ as Lord must then—in order to receive remission (forgiveness) of sins—be baptized. [The English word “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, meaning to immerse, dip, plunge beneath, or submerge (Thayer, 1958, p. 94).]
Further, it is baptism that puts a person “in Christ.” Paul told the first-century Christians in Rome:
Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4). Paul told the Galatians: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (3:27, emp. added). Little wonder, then, that Peter spoke of baptism as that which saves (1 Peter 3:21).
Numerous New Testament writers made the point that it is only when we come into contact with Christ’s blood that our sins can be washed away (Ephesians 1:7-8; Revelation 5:9; Romans 5:8-9; Hebrews 9:12-14). The question arises: When did Jesus shed His blood? The answer, of course, is that He shed His blood on the Cross at His death (John 19:31-34). Where, and how, does one come into contact with Christ’s blood to obtain the forgiveness of sin that such contact ensures? Paul answered that question when he wrote to the Christians in Rome. It is only in baptism that contact with the blood, and the death, of Christ is made (Romans 6:3-11). Further, the ultimate hope of our resurrection (to live with Him in heaven) is linked to baptism. Paul wrote of “having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12). If we are not baptized, we remain in our sins. If we are not baptized, we have no hope of the resurrection that leads to heaven.
Baptism, of course, is no less, or more, important than any other of God’s commands regarding what to do to be saved. But it is necessary. And one cannot be saved without it. Is baptism a command of God? Yes, it is (Acts 10:48). Is baptism where the remission of sins occurs? Yes, it is (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21).
Some, who no doubt mean well, teach that a person is saved by “faith only.” In other words, people are taught simply to “pray and ask Jesus to come into their hearts,” so that they might be saved from their sins. This teaching, though widespread, is completely at odds with the Bible’s specific instructions regarding what one must do to be saved.
First, the Scriptures teach clearly that God does not hear (i.e., hear to respond with forgiveness) the prayer of an alien sinner (Psalm 34:15-16; Proverbs 15:29; Proverbs 28:9). Thus, the sinner can pray as long and as hard as he wants, but God has stated plainly how a person is to be saved. This makes perfect sense, since in John 14:6 Christ taught: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one cometh to the Father but by me.” The alien sinner cannot approach God on his own, and, as an alien sinner, has no advocate to do so on his behalf. That is one of the spiritual blessings reserved for Christians (Ephesians 1:3). Thus, it is fruitless for an alien sinner to pray to God to “send Jesus into his heart.” God does not hear (i.e., hear to respond to) such a request.
Second, the Scriptures plainly teach that man cannot be saved by faith alone. James, in his epistle, remarked that indeed, a man may be justified (i.e., saved), but “not only by faith” (James 2:24). This, too, makes perfect sense. As James had observed just a few verses earlier: “Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well; the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19). It is not enough merely to believe. Even the demons in hell believe, but they hardly are saved (see 2 Peter 2:4). It is obvious, therefore, that mere faith alone is insufficient to save.
Also, where, exactly, in the Scriptures does it teach that, in order to be saved, one is to “pray to ask Jesus to come into his heart”? Through the years, I have asked many within various religious groups this question, but have yet to find anyone who could provide a single biblical reference to substantiate such a claim. Salvation is not conditioned on prayer; it is conditioned on the “obedience of faith.” Saul, as Christ’s enemy-turned-penitent, prayed earnestly. But the fact remains that his sins were removed (“washed away”) only when he obeyed God’s command, as verbalized by Ananias, to be baptized. Prayer could not wash away Saul’s sins; the Lord’s blood could—at the point of baptism (Hebrews 9:22; Ephesians 5:26).
CONCLUSION
The biblical message—from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22—is that mankind is in a woefully sinful condition, and desperately in need of help in order to find his way “back home.” A corollary to that message is that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11), and genuinely desires that all should be saved (John 3:16). But in order to be saved, one must do exactly what God commanded, in exactly the way God commanded it. When a person hears, believes, repents, confesses, and is baptized for the forgiveness of his sins, that person becomes a Christian—nothing more, and nothing less. God Himself then adds that Christian to His Son’s one true body—the church. The child of God who remains faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10) is promised a crown of life and eternity in heaven as a result of his faith, his obedience, God’s mercy, and God’s grace (John 14:15; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 1:5). What a joyous thought—to live the “abundant life” (John 10:10b) with a “peace that passeth understanding” (Philippians 4:7) here and now, and then to be rewarded with a home in heaven in the hereafter (John 14:2-3). What a joyous thought indeed!
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1259
Loc: St Bess, Jamaica
Offline
"But in order to be saved, one must do exactly what God commanded, in exactly the way God commanded it. When a person hears, believes, repents, confesses, and is baptized for the forgiveness of his sins, that person becomes a Christian—nothing more, and nothing less. God Himself then adds that Christian to His Son’s one true body—the church." So what about the people who lived BC and are not baptised? Is there a different "plan" for them? And those who live in remote areas , like the Amazon and new Guinea, and have never heard of Jesus (PBUH),is there a "plan" for them too? How many "plans" does God have? I prefer what Jesus (PBUH) told the young man, "Follow the Commandments". Everyone can do this even if he has not heard the actual Commandments. Jesus (PBUH) did not mention, believe in the "son of God" or dying on the cross, or follow the teachings of Paul.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 506
Loc: Sacramento, California
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
"But in order to be saved, one must do exactly what God commanded, in exactly the way God commanded it. When a person hears, believes, repents, confesses, and is baptized for the forgiveness of his sins, that person becomes a Christian—nothing more, and nothing less. God Himself then adds that Christian to His Son’s one true body—the church." So what about the people who lived BC and are not baptised? Is there a different "plan" for them? And those who live in remote areas , like the Amazon and new Guinea, and have never heard of Jesus (PBUH),is there a "plan" for them too? How many "plans" does God have? I prefer what Jesus (PBUH) told the young man, "Follow the Commandments". Everyone can do this even if he has not heard the actual Commandments. Jesus (PBUH) did not mention, believe in the "son of God" or dying on the cross, or follow the teachings of Paul.
In other words then Tman, you're perfect, you have been keeping all the commandments from a baby til now?
Again, I already showed you where in scripture that at the crucifixion when Jesus said: "it is finished" meaning the atonement, there was a massive earth quake according to scripture and the dead came out the graves and went with Jesus and the were seen by many people walking through the streets, those were the righteous from (BC) take note Tman, scripture shows that they went with Jesus and nobody else, only Jesus can reconcile you with the Father. God's plan of salvation is universal, it is the way it is for every single human,also it is a commandment which the most righteous and perfect Tman does not keep.
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 506
Loc: Sacramento, California
Offline
By the way, Tman, on one of the other threads you said that you're not rejecting God's plan of salvation, but you are rejecting what I said is God's plan of salvation.
Just to inform you Tman, I didn't write the Bible and the plan that I presented to you is from the Holy Bible which is the word of the living God and I gave you scripture references for authenticity of every thing that I wrote, so therefore my friend you're not rejecting anything that Noel said, you are rejecting what The Lord says.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1259
Loc: St Bess, Jamaica
Offline
Mr Slippery, I answered your question with a yes or no and am asking the same courtesy to answer my questions in your own words and not quotes; So what about the people who lived BC and are not baptised? Is there a different "plan" for them? And those who live in remote areas , like the Amazon and new Guinea, and have never heard of Jesus (PBUH),is there a "plan" for them too? How many "plans" does God have? I prefer what Jesus (PBUH) told the young man, "Follow the Commandments". Everyone can do this even if he has not heard the actual Commandments. Jesus (PBUH) did not mention, believe in the "son of God" or dying on the cross, or follow the teachings of Paul. You believe what you believe because you think Paul and all those others writings are the "gospel" truth,but we Muslims have a different concept of the Bible and this is it: we believe in ALL the Books, of Moses of David of Jesus (peace be unto all of them) as it was Revelaed, not in the present versions which have been corrupted by mis-translations and mistakes. In another thread I pointed out 101 mistakes in the Bible and there are thousands more. You cannot point out ONE mistake in the Qur'an, and in another thread you took up the false defense of the Pharasees who said Jesus(PBUH) drove out demons by satan, and said Muhammad (PHUH) was deceived by satan. My answer is the same that Jesus (PBUH) gave then: a nation divided against itself cannot stand i.e. the Qur'an preaches against satan so how could he reveal a book that preaches against himself? Don't you see how stupid your answer is?
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 506
Loc: Sacramento, California
Offline
My answer is the same that Jesus (PBUH) gave then: a nation divided against itself cannot stand i.e. the Qur'an preaches against satan so how could he reveal a book that preaches against himself?
Answer: Satan gave Muhammad an ounce of truth in an ocean of lies. How can God Contradict himself? The Angel Gabriel told Daniel
So what about the people who lived BC and are not baptised? Is there a different "plan" for them?
Answer: that's why you need to put done the demonic book and separate yourself unto God like I did. You're worshipping a religion instead of worshipping the one true, living God, Jesus Christ. I am not a Christian Tman, I am a believer, Christianity is just another mind control religion just like Islam and the others, setup by some blood sucking, money grabbing Bureaucrats who is just after one thing, your money. Do you notice that words christian and christianity is not in the bible? No, you will see the words: Saints and Believers, so get it right, I am not a christian, christianity is a cult just like Islam. I follow Jesus Christ and not religion. "take up your cross and come follow me" Again Tman, Jesus told the rich young ruler to: "sell all that you have and give the money to the poor and come follow me"...not religion.
So what about the people who lived BC and are not baptised? Is there a different "plan" for them? The people who where living in BC where under the old covenant which was the law, and they needed blood sacrifice for the atonement and a High priest to intercede on thier behalf.
Today we are under a new covernant which is the covernant of grace. We still need blood sacrafice and we still need a High priest to intercede. Jesus Christ is our sacrificial Lamb and he is als our High Priest. Water Baptism is essential, because when you do that you are making a public statement to say: I am crucified with Christ and I rosed with him to new life.
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 506
Loc: Sacramento, California
Offline
Had the spirit been Gabriel, he would not have contradicted his former revelations. Six hundred years before Muhammad, Gabriel said to Mary when he appeared to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called Son of God (Luke 1:35). But the spirit who appeared to Muhammad said to him: ...and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved (literally those who are infidels) of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they (Surat Al-Tawbah 9:30 MPT). Gabriel said to Mary that Jesus would be called the Son of God. The spirit who gave the revelations to Muhammad said that this is the saying of the infidels, and declares that Allah Himself fights against the Christians who confess that Jesus is the Son of God. Was the spirit really the angel Gabriel? Could Gabriel contradict himself in such an important matter?
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1259
Loc: St Bess, Jamaica
Offline
See other thread for New Authorised Version of this passage.
I have answered your question with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ as you requested and all I am asking for the same courtesy. Please could you answer these for me without lengthy quotes, which I don’t explain anything, anyway. If not me and you will have to go our separate ways:
1) ON SALVATION So what about the people who lived BC and are not baptised? Is there a different "plan" for them? And those who live in remote areas , like the Amazon and New Guinea, and have never heard of Jesus (PBUH),is there a "plan" for them too? How many "plans" does God have?
YOUR BIBLE SAYS: "To do righteousness and justice [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." Proverbs 21:3
"For I (God) desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6
“O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:6-8
Matthew 16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
(PS: no son of God, no die on the cross)
ISLAM TEACHES: "Say: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt (through excessive sin)! Despair not of the mercy of Allah. Verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most-Merciful." The noble Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):53
2) NATURE OF JESUS (PBUH) Christians who claim to be reading form the same Book can’t even agree among themselves about the nature of Jesus (PBUH). Which one of the sects do you belong to? The one that says Jesus (PBUH) is man and God. The one that says Jesus (PBUH) is man only. The one that says Jesus (PBUH) is man some of the time and God some of the time.
ISLAM TEACHES: Qur’an 22. 19: These two antagonists (Christian sects) dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. 5. 14: From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. 5. 72 : They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
3) THREE DAYS Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 26:61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. It’s not maths, its what your Book says and what you base your faith upon; Jesus (PBUH) would die on the cross and raise up in three days. But Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is not three days. Please explain.
4) PAUL LIED Acts 9:19-29
"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."
Acts 26:19-21
Contradicted by:
"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Some of the contradictions are:
1) Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?).
2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to Jerusalem. It explicitly states that "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles." So this is claimed to be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia.
3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles. He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles" Rather, it claims that he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "three years" after his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting with them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James.
4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in and out of Jerusalem" preaching "boldly" to the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James. He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown by face to the churches of Judea," they would also not have "heard only" of his conversion but would have eye-witnessed his bold campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes.
If the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of his own "salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus' words, or other matters?
The fact that Paul never actually met Jesus during his lifetime, never traveled with him, ate with him, or learned directly from him would obviously make the apostles of Jesus the first source of guidance for those followers of Jesus who wished to know what Jesus taught. Jesus' apostles also did not have a previous history of persecuting his followers. The only reason why anyone might want to bypass the apostles to speak to Paul is if Paul began to receive a series of holy visions from Jesus. The apostles did not claim to be receiving visions from Jesus, so obviously, Paul's claims that he was receiving divine visions from Jesus would go a long way towards drawing the followers of Jesus away from them and to his interpretation of the message of Jesus. Paul himself proudly proclaims that he has no need of learning from any human being, not even the apostles, he is completely independent of their knowledge and all he needs is his visions. Paulinity.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 506
Loc: Sacramento, California
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
See other thread for New Authorised Version of this passage.
I have answered your question with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ as you requested and all I am asking for the same courtesy. Please could you answer these for me without lengthy quotes, which I don’t explain anything, anyway. If not me and you will have to go our separate ways:
1) ON SALVATION So what about the people who lived BC and are not baptised? Is there a different "plan" for them? And those who live in remote areas , like the Amazon and New Guinea, and have never heard of Jesus (PBUH),is there a "plan" for them too? How many "plans" does God have?
Answer: No, The pattern of salvation in the Old Testament is exactly the same as the pattern of New Testament salvation.
YOUR BIBLE SAYS: "To do righteousness and justice [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." Proverbs 21:3
Yes, but remember the key to understand what you're reading is: context, context, context.
"For I (God) desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6
Yes, its's all about context, context, context.
“O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:6-8 yes: context, context, context.
Matthew 16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Yes, context, context, context. They were still under the law, so it was necessary to keep the commandments.
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
yes: that was Jesus in his humanity speaking and directing our attention unto God and not man. To God be the glory.
(PS: no son of God, no die on the cross) And no Angel Gabriel no bring down no quran, it was Satan himself, you are decieved Tman
ISLAM TEACHES: "Say: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt (through excessive sin)! Despair not of the mercy of Allah. Verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most-Merciful." The noble Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):53
Islam is a cult just like christianity and all religions. I don't follow religion I follow Jesus Christ.
2) NATURE OF JESUS (PBUH) Christians who claim to be reading form the same Book can’t even agree among themselves about the nature of Jesus (PBUH). Which one of the sects do you belong to?
I don't belong to any sect, I belong to Jesus Christ however I believe that Jesus is fully God and Fully man.
The one that says Jesus (PBUH) is man and God. The one that says Jesus (PBUH) is man only. The one that says Jesus (PBUH) is man some of the time and God some of the time.
ISLAM TEACHES: Qur’an 22. 19: These two antagonists (Christian sects) dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. 5. 14: From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. 5. 72 : They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
Again, mi bun all religion they're all cult, none seek after God.
3) THREE DAYS Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 26:61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. It’s not maths, its what your Book says and what you base your faith upon; Jesus (PBUH) would die on the cross and raise up in three days. But Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is not three days. Please explain.
You missed it Tman, what's important is not:1,2,3 or 4 days. What's important is that he is risen like he said he would.
4) PAUL LIED Acts 9:19-29
"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."
Acts 26:19-21
Contradicted by:
"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Some of the contradictions are:
1) Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?).
2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to Jerusalem. It explicitly states that "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles." So this is claimed to be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia.
3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles. He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles" Rather, it claims that he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "three years" after his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting with them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James.
4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in and out of Jerusalem" preaching "boldly" to the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James. He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown by face to the churches of Judea," they would also not have "heard only" of his conversion but would have eye-witnessed his bold campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes.
If the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of his own "salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus' words, or other matters?
The fact that Paul never actually met Jesus during his lifetime, never traveled with him, ate with him, or learned directly from him would obviously make the apostles of Jesus the first source of guidance for those followers of Jesus who wished to know what Jesus taught. Jesus' apostles also did not have a previous history of persecuting his followers. The only reason why anyone might want to bypass the apostles to speak to Paul is if Paul began to receive a series of holy visions from Jesus. The apostles did not claim to be receiving visions from Jesus, so obviously, Paul's claims that he was receiving divine visions from Jesus would go a long way towards drawing the followers of Jesus away from them and to his interpretation of the message of Jesus. Paul himself proudly proclaims that he has no need of learning from any human being, not even the apostles, he is completely independent of their knowledge and all he needs is his visions. Paulinity.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1259
Loc: St Bess, Jamaica
Offline
Lets hope you come better this time. Really a feebly effort. You took a penalty and it went for a throw in.
1) ON SALVATION Tman: So what about the people who lived BC and are not baptised? Is there a different "plan" for them? And those who live in remote areas , like the Amazon and New Guinea, and have never heard of Jesus (PBUH),is there a "plan" for them too? How many "plans" does God have?
Noel Answer: No, The pattern of salvation in the Old Testament is exactly the same as the pattern of New Testament salvation. Tman rebuttal: How can it be the same? These people I mention don’t know anything about Jesus and dying on the cross, which according to you is God’s plan for salvation. ISLAM TEACHES: Follow the Commandments and ask GOD for forgiveness when you sin.
Tman: YOUR BIBLE SAYS: "To do righteousness and justice [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." Proverbs 21:3
Noel answer: Yes, but remember the key to understand what you're reading is: context, context, context. "For I (God) desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6 Yes, its's all about context, context, context.
“O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:6-8 yes: context, context, context. Matthew 16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Yes, context, context, context. They were still under the law, so it was necessary to keep the commandments. Tman rebuttal: But Jesus (PBUH) said he did not come to change one dot or iota of the law but to follow it, which he did up to praying in the temple. He was a devout Jew all his life. It was Paul, the Roman Gentile, who changed up everything after getting a “vision”. Shouting “context” is not good enough as God does not change from the Old testament to the New.
Tman: 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Noel answer: Yes: that was Jesus in his humanity speaking and directing our attention unto God and not man. To God be the glory. Tman rebuttal: Jesus (PBUH) always direct us to God as having all the power and not himself, and even called himself the son of man.
Tman: (PS: no son of God, no die on the cross)
Noel answer: And no Angel Gabriel no bring down no quran, it was Satan himself, you are decieved Tman Tman rebuttal: We don’t need the Angel Gabriel or the Qur’an to follow the Commandments or to ask God for forgiveness. The people before the Qur’an and some Jews and Christians will be saved even though they don’t believe in the Qur’an.
Tman: ISLAM TEACHES: "Say: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt (through excessive sin)! Despair not of the mercy of Allah. Verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most-Merciful." The noble Qur'an, Al-Zumar(39):53
Noel answer: Islam is a cult just like christianity and all religions. I don't follow religion I follow Jesus Christ. Tman rebuttal: You have to explain that a little better because I thought the followers of Jesus Christ are called “Christians”, or is this a new order. We should call it “Noelanity”.
Tman: 2) NATURE OF JESUS (PBUH) Christians who claim to be reading form the same Book can’t even agree among themselves about the nature of Jesus (PBUH). Which one of the sects do you belong to? The one that says Jesus (PBUH) is man and God. The one that says Jesus (PBUH) is man only. The one that says Jesus (PBUH) is man some of the time and God some of the time. Noel answer: I don't belong to any sect, I belong to Jesus Christ however I believe that Jesus is fully God and Fully man. Tman rebuttal: That is just another “branch” of Christianity no matter how much you deny it. Will look up the dictionary definition for you.
Tman: ISLAM TEACHES: Qur’an 22. 19: These two antagonists (Christian sects) dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. 5. 14: From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. 5. 72 : They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
Noel answer: Again, mi bun all religion they're all cult, none seek after God. Tman rebuttal: So you alone have all the answers and all the good Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists etc are going to burn in hell?
Tman: 3) THREE DAYS Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 26:61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. It’s not maths, its what your Book says and what you base your faith upon; Jesus (PBUH) would die on the cross and raise up in three days. But Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is not three days. Please explain.
Noel answer: You missed it Tman, what's important is not:1,2,3 or 4 days. What's important is that he is risen like he said he would. Tman rebuttal: So what is written in the Bible is not important when it comes to numbers? Or you pick and choose which ones to believe? So we can say: God created the earth in 5 days, Moses (PBUH) was in the mountain 39 days, Jesus (PBUH) was in the desert 38 days, according to you. Jesus (PBUH) said when they asked him for a sign that no sign shall be given except the sign of Jonah. And if we discount the three days, as you want to, the miracle was that he came out of the fish ALIVE, not resurrected as you claim for Jesus (PBUH). Jonah came out as a MAN, not a spirit, just like Jesus (PBUH) who ate fish and honey with the disciples to show them he was a MAN (ALIVE) not a spirit. (See original post crucifixion or cruci-fiction)
Tman: 4) PAUL LIED Acts 9:19-29 "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me." Acts 26:19-21 Contradicted by: Galatians: 15 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Some of the contradictions are: 1) Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?). 2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to Jerusalem. It explicitly states that "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles." So this is claimed to be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia. 3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles. He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles" Rather, it claims that he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "three years" after his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting with them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James. 4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in and out of Jerusalem" preaching "boldly" to the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James. He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown by face to the churches of Judea," they would also not have "heard only" of his conversion but would have eye-witnessed his bold campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes. If the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of his own "salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus' words, or other matters? The fact that Paul never actually met Jesus during his lifetime, never traveled with him, ate with him, or learned directly from him would obviously make the apostles of Jesus the first source of guidance for those followers of Jesus who wished to know what Jesus taught. Jesus' apostles also did not have a previous history of persecuting his followers. The only reason why anyone might want to bypass the apostles to speak to Paul is if Paul began to receive a series of holy visions from Jesus. The apostles did not claim to be receiving visions from Jesus, so obviously, Paul's claims that he was receiving divine visions from Jesus would go a long way towards drawing the followers of Jesus away from them and to his interpretation of the message of Jesus. Paul himself proudly proclaims that he has no need of learning from any human being, not even the apostles, he is completely independent of their knowledge and all he needs is his visions. Paulinity.
Noel answer: All taken out of context. Tman rebuttal: Don’t hide behind “context” again, Mr Slippery. Either Paul wrote contradictory accounts (lies) or he did not. It has nothing to do with “context”. You need to explain which of the two accounts Paul wrote was the truth, both cant be.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 506
Loc: Sacramento, California
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
. Tman rebuttal: Don’t hide behind “context” again, Mr Slippery. Either Paul wrote contradictory accounts (lies) or he did not. It has nothing to do with “context”. You need to explain which of the two accounts Paul wrote was the truth, both cant be.
What a precious treasure we have in our salvation, in Yahshua, and in the Bible. Sadly, though, there are those who are out to steal all three treasures from us. I personally know of several brethren in my circle of acquaintances who have renounced Yahshua as their Savior. They failed to guard their treasure and their hearts. Those treasures were stolen from them. The theft occurred slowly over time and it all began with doubting the Apostle Paul.
The Ebionite teaching that the Apostle Paul is a false apostle is being revived. If it hasn't touched you yet, it will. This study is actually a refutation to an article entitled, "Paul, The Good, The Bad, The Ugly", as well as other accusations not found in that article. Hopefully, this refutation will prepare you to discern the truth of the matter.
The foundation of the belief that Paul is a false Apostle lies in the inability to harmonize Paul with the rest of the Bible. Rather than waiting on Yahweh to provide understanding concerning Paul's writings, the anti-Paulists prefer to simply dismiss his writings as those of a false teacher. Peter warned us that this would happen.
2 Peter 3:15,16 reads, "And account that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Conveniently, however, anti-Paulists would say that the second epistle of Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter and therefore should not be part of our current New Testament canon. This reveals the extent that they will go. They would discard the entire epistle in order to get rid of two verses in support of Paul. The fact is that no one knows for sure that Peter did not write this second epistle. At this point in time it is simply a theory. I offer two sources which defend Peter as the author of the second epistle; 1 , 2.
Historical Arguments
Anti-Paulists have no choice but to discard "The Acts of the Apostles" as well because it, too, contains pro-Paul statements. Luke, for example, calls Paul an "apostle" twice in one chapter (Acts 14:4, 14). The anti-Paulist says of those two verses;
"By this time in the record, Luke would have been very familiar with Paul calling himself an apostle and was no doubt in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record as recognizing his apostleship!"
Luke is also the only one in the Bible who goes on record to describe the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Feast of Weeks). Should we doubt that account because only Luke records it? Of course not.
According to Yahshua's words to Ananaias, Paul was specifically chosen by Yahshua to bear his name before the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15). In other words, he was sent by Yahshua which is what the word "apostle" means. We see Paul's actual separation as a sent one (apostle) in Acts 13:1-4 where the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets and teachers in the Antioch congregation.
"Now there were in the assembly that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Master, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus."
It was actually the Holy Spirit that separated Barnabas and Paul for the work. Was the Holy Spirit incorrect in doing that?
Anti-Paulists will attempt to discredit Luke and Paul by showing how the three accounts of Paul's conversion differ from one another. Acts 9:7 says the men traveling with Paul "heard a voice". Acts 22:9 says of those same men, "they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me".
I offer three possible reasons for this difference;
1) One voice spoke to Paul while a different voice spoke to the rest saying something like, "Fear not"
2) They heard the same voice, but could not hear the actual words that were spoken
3) They heard all the words, but did not understand. The Greek word for "hear" can have the meaning of "understand" as in Jn. 8:43,47. The NIV uses the word "understand" in Acts 22:9, basing it upon the Greek text which reads differently.
9:7 - akouontes men tes phones
22:9 - ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi
Here are the notes from Dr. James R. White (a Greek scholar) in his book entitled, "Scripture Alone", pg.160:
"First, in 9:7 akouo, the verb that means "to hear," is a nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is a plural aorist verb.
Second, in 9:7 phone, a "sound" or "voice," is a singular genetive noun; in 22:9 it is a singular accusative noun.
Third, in 9:7 akouo precedes its object; in 22:9 it follows its object. Fourth, in 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9 it is modified by "of the one speaking to me."
Finally, in 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in Greek; in 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Hebrew or Aramaic . . ."
The context of Acts 22:9 suggests that the reason the men did not hear the voice is because the voice was speaking to Paul in Hebrew, which they did not understand. Remember, Paul said they did not hear the voice and then says, "of the one speaking to me."
That either Paul or Luke was lying is not a valid choice.
Acts 29:9-18 is the third conversion account wherein Paul goes into greater detail as to what Yahshua said to him. These differences in Paul's conversion account lead anti-Paulists to doubt his apostleship.
I don't know about you, but when I give my testimony to people, it never comes out the same. I share more info with certain people than with others based on who I'm talking to and how much time I have to give my testimony. To accuse Paul of lying to King Agrippa when giving his testimony for the third time is outrageous to say the least.
Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of lying in Acts 23:6. It reads as follows:
"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."
They contend that he was not called in question over the resurrection, but simply lied in order to save himself. Let's look back and see what the original cause was. In Acts 21:28, Paul was falsely accused of bringing Greeks into the temple. I say "falsely" because his accusers only "supposed" that Paul brought Trophimus into the temple (Acts 21:29).
As Paul was being led away, he asked to speak to the people. He then began to recount his conversion in which he told them the resurrected Savior spoke to him. This speech took place in Jerusalem where everyone was well aware of the events that took place in putting Yahshua to death. By saying Yahshua spoke to him after his death, Paul was confirming his resurrection, through which all believers have hope in a future resurrection. Is that not what Paul said in Acts 23:6: "of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question"? Eventually, the mob cried out, "Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live" (Acts 22:22).
Paul is then taken before the Sanhedrin where he makes an honest mistake in rebuking the high priest out of ignorance of his identity (Acts 23:2-5). Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of lying here as well. They say he had to know it was the high priest because he knew he was his judge and he knew the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul, however, had been absent from Jersualem for quite a while, during which a change in the high priest may have been made. High priests at that time were set up at the whim of the Roman government for political reasons. Additionally, any number of other circumstances may have led to Paul's ignorance in this matter.
What saddens me is that the anti-Paulists do not give Paul the benefit of the doubt in anything. They are so quick to condemn Paul in every little point they can dig up.
Paul's ensuing comments in verse 6 were perfectly true, for that is the real reason why any believer is persecuted. That is why they falsely accused Stephen in Acts 6:11-12 as well as Paul in Acts 21:28.
The Sanhedrin were well aware of that because they were guilty of such persecution for that very reason. Acts 22:4-5 read as follows:
"And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished."
Paul was commissioned by the high priest and the council of elders to imprison as many of Yahshua's followers as he could find. See also Acts 9:1-2.
Anti-Paulists continue their attack on Paul by showing how he fulfills Mt.10:16-18. It reads,
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles."
The accounts of Saul's persecution of believers certainly seem to fulfill those verses, but does Paul's actions prior to his conversion really matter? What about the prediction Yahshua made in Mt.26:34?
"Yahshua said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."
Should we also consider Peter a false apostle based on his actions prior to conversion? What about each of us? Were we not forgiven of much at our conversion? So, too, should Saul of Tarsus be forgiven.
Paul is also accused of lying to the Galatians. To understand this false accusation, we need to first read Acts 15:19-29;
"Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to [Elohim]; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath. Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote thus by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Master Yahshua Messiah."
Please note that James calls Paul and Barnabas "beloved". Do the anti-Paulists seek to throw James out of the NT canon as well?
"We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if you keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare you well."
Here is what the anti-Paulists then say;
"There are actually several things going on here but first I want to focus on the instructions of the council. They instruct Paul to write to the churches that they avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and from meat with blood, and from fornication (or idolatry). This is very clear. So what did Paul write to the churches about his instructions from Jerusalem?"
Galatians 2:7-10 (NASB95)
7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor the very thing I also was eager to do.
WHOA! What just happened? Paul admits to being in Jerusalem. He admits to having met the apostles. He brags that they accepted him as a brother and then concludes that all they asked us to do was remember the poor which I will gladly do. Where did this come from? Did the council ask Paul to tell the churches to remember the poor? NO! The council told Paul to write to the churches to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and from fornication (idolatry). Did Paul flat out lie here? Again, we will note that Paul not only refused to pass along the warning from Jerusalem but he actually taught the OPPOSITE to the churches (that is that it is ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols)."
There are actually several accusations here. I'll address the last one first. They said, " Again, we will note that Paul not only refused to pass along the warning from Jerusalem . . ." Is that true? One need only continue reading Acts 15:30-31;
"So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation."
Acts 16:4-5 read as follows:
"And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered them the decrees to keep which had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem. So the assemblies were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily."
So was Paul actually lying? No. It's the anti-Paulist's who have grossly erred in assuming and falsely accusing Paul.
The other false accusation of Paul lying concerns the reference to Gal.2:7-10. Paul said, " They only asked us to remember the poor the very thing I also was eager to do" (vs.10). The anti-Paulist responds with,
"WHOA! What just happened? Paul admits to being in Jerusalem. He admits to having met the apostles. He brags that they accepted him as a brother and then concludes that all they asked us to do was remember the poor which I will gladly do. Where did this come from? Did the council ask Paul to tell the churches to remember the poor? NO! The council told Paul to write to the churches to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and from fornication (idolatry). Did Paul flat out lie here?"
The answer to the last question is no, he did not lie. Paul was writing a letter to the Galatian assembly. The council never said their decrees were for all Gentile congregations, but only for the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23). Paul had no reason to give those decrees to the Galatians because the council never told him to. I mention more about this later.
Anti-Paulists also use Gal.2:6 to show Paul's supposed lack of respect of the other twelve apostles and how they have no authority over Paul. Gal.2:6 reads thusly:
"But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: [Elohim] accepts not man's person)--they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:"
One anti-Paulist then says,
"Here Paul goes full board in his lack of respect for the twelve. Paul says of the twelve that they seem to be important but that it makes no difference to me. In other words the twelve apostles aren't important to Paul despite their apparent positions of authority. He then brags again that they ADDED NOTHING to his message. Paul wants to really drive the point home that the apostles mean little to him and wants his audience to know that he does not take direction from them nor has he been taught anything by them."
These remarks are based on divorcing verse 6 from the context which includes verses 3-5.
"But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Messiah Yahshua, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
Paul was not attacking the other twelve apostles. He was referring to false brethren that snuck in to teach their doctrine of salvation by works.
To further compound their error, the anti-Paulists fail to cross reference properly. They say,
"There is one other point often overlooked in the decision of the Jerusalem council and that is that the apostles apparently didn't have full trust in Paul and thought it necessary to send someone along with him as a witness to what he was teaching. In the letter which the council drafts they say:
Acts 15:24-27 (NASB95)
24 "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth.
The council's letter acknowledges that Paul has received no instruction from them but has been preaching on his own. Remember, Paul himself bragged about that. The council also acknowledges that what Paul is teaching has been disturbing those who hear him."
The anti-Paulist applies verse 24 to Paul when, in reality, it is a reference to Acts 15:1, 2, 5, 6 which read as follows:
"And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." . . . "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter."
Verse 24 is referring to the legalistic Pharisees which believed in justification by works, and were teaching the same. They were of the "number" of Jews in Judea where the Apostles were from. They went to Antioch to preach their false doctrine without the Apostles instruction to do so. The council sent their "beloved" Barnabas and Paul to correct the problem.
Anti-Paulists teach that all the believers in Asia turned away from Paul and tried to kill him. They write;
"Now to the meat of the matter! First I will prove from the accepted canon and from Paul's words himself that he was rejected in all the churches of Asia."
Acts 19:8-10 (NASB95)
8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.
Before we saw that Paul reasoned with the Jews in the synagogues but now we hear a little more of the story. Paul continued to preach in Ephesus but he wasn't well received for long for Luke records that some there began to speak evil of the Way before the people and that they had to withdraw from them. Putting aside the good and bad for a moment the facts are that Paul preached in Ephesus but eventually had to leave as they turned against him."
Who turned against Paul in the above passage, believers or hardened and disobedient, unbelieving Jews in the synagogue? Who was Paul reasoning with and persuading about the Kingdom of Elohim? Believers were already persuaded and embraced the Kingdom through Yahshua. It was the unbelieving Jews who needed persuading and who turned against Paul.
The anti-Paulist continues;
"2 Corinthians 1:8-10 (NASB95)
8 For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life; 9 indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; 10 who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us,
Paul admits that while in Asia that things got so bad they had the sentence of death put on them. In other words, the believers in Asia were going to kill Paul and his companions!"
These verses refer to the wrath of the Ephesians after Paul said their goddess Diana was no mighty one at all. Let's pick up the account in Acts 19:28-32.
"And when they heard this they were filled with wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesus. And the city was filled with the confusion: and they rushed with one accord into the theatre, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel. And when Paul was minded to enter in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not. And certain also of the Asiarchs, being his friends, sent unto him and besought him not to adventure himself into the theatre. Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was in confusion; and the more part knew not why they were come together."
This mob wasn't thinking. They were wild with resentment and wrath. If the town clerk hadn't calmed them down in verses 35-41, they may have rashly put Paul and his companions to death.
The thing that is so unbelievable to me is that the anti-Paulists read 2 Cor.1:8-10 to mean "believers" wanted to kill Paul and his companions. Would any believer go against our Savior's command to love our enemies (Mt.5:44-48) by killing them? Can you picture any believer in Acts killing anybody? Believers are sheep to be slaughtered, not slaughterers of the sheep.
The anti-Paulist also appeals to 2 Tim.1:15. They say,
"2 Timothy 1:15 (NASB95)
15 You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.
Now Paul tells us that ALL of those in Asia turned away from him. Paul had to flee Ephesus for some reason and all the believers in Asia wanted him killed."
We are not told why they turned from Paul. I suspect it was a result of what took place at Ephesus. The weaker believers feared for their lives and fled from Paul because he was the lightning rod of that entire wrath. Does that sound familiar? Did not all of Messiah's disciples turn from him out of fear for their lives? Does that make Yahshua a false Messiah? Neither does it make Paul a false apostle.
The last attack on Paul from an historical perspective that I will address comes from the anti-Paulist's pitiful interpretation of Rev.2:1-3. It reads as follows:
"To the angel of the assembly in Ephesus write: These things saith he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, he that walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks: I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou can not bear evil men, and did try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and did find them false; and thou hast patience and did bear for my name's sake, and hast not grown weary. "
The anti-Paulist then says;
Paul is the only one we know of in the accepted canon that went to Asia and specifically preached in Ephesus. Paul writes to the church in Ephesus saying that he is an apostle. . . This same body of believers in Ephesus are now congratulated for testing someone who claimed to be an apostles and were not. Could this be talking about Paul and Barnabas? Were they tested for three months and ultimately rejected as false apostles and ran out of town at threat of death? Did the church of Ephesus eventually conclude that Paul was a liar and was NOT an apostle?
Did you absorb that? Did the Ephesians run Paul and Barnabas out of town as false apostles? Let's read Acts 20:17-22.
"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the assembly. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, after what manner I was with you all the time, serving the Master with all lowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews; how I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward [Elohim], and faith toward our Master Yahshua Messiah. And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:"
Paul is about to depart for Jerusalem, but he desires one last meeting with the Elders of the Ephesian congregation. Let's resume in Acts 20:29-38.
"I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears. And now I commend you to [Elohim], and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified. I coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. In all things I gave you an example, that so laboring you ought to help the weak, and to remember the words of the Master Yahshua, that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down and prayed with them all. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the word which he had spoken, that they should behold his face no more. And they brought him on his way unto the ship."
Does that sound like they found him to be a false apostle or does it sound like they loved him dearly and couldn't bear not seeing him anymore? He left them on very good terms. However, in that meeting he prophesied that grievous wolves would come to Ephesus and not spare the flock. Others would draw away disciples to themselves. The "apostles" Yahshua referred to were most likely these men who were grievous wolves.
Doctrinal Arguments
The anti-Paulists not only attack Paul historically, but doctrinally as well. Let's explore some of the "heresies" that the Apostle Paul supposedly taught.
No One Righteous
In Romans 3:10-12, Paul refers to Psa.14 to prove all have sinned and no one is righteous. Anti-Paulists say Paul misquoted Psa.14. Paul wrote, "There is none righteous, no not one." Psa.14:3 reads, "there is none that doeth good, no not one." There are a few other differences as well. The truth is, Paul was not quoting, but paraphrasing. Even if he was quoting, there are other examples of people not quoting exactly. For example:
Psalm 53 is almost identical to Psalm 14 with the exception of Psa.53:5 and "Elohim" in Psa.53 where Psa.14 has "YHWH". Is David misquoting his own Psalm because it is not an exact quote? Does that make David a false prophet?
In Mt.4:4, Yahshua said:
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." KJV
Yahshua was quoting Deut.8:3 which reads:
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man does not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Yahweh does man live."
As you can see, Yahshua did not quote this verse perfectly. He left out some words in the beginning and some at the end. Does that make him a false Messiah? Or should we blame Matthew for misquoting Yahshua and throw his book out along with Paul's writings? I'm being sarcastic, of course. The truth is that the meaning and understanding of the Psalm is being carried over by Paul.
Keep in mind that believers in ancient times did not get to carry around the Scriptures wherever they went as we do. They did not have computers to instantly write out a verse stored in its memory. They had to rely on their own memories.
I can guarantee that every anti-Paulist, at one time or another, has misquoted a verse. I wonder if they would consider themselves false brethren because of such a mistake.
Because anti-Paulist's believe Paul falsely used the word "righteous", they will also accuse Paul of teaching falsely because Scripture says Noah, Abraham, David and others were "righteous". Not only does Psa.14:3 read, "they are ALL gone aside, they are ALL together become filthy, but Eccl.7:20 reads,
"Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that does good, and sins not."
There were no righteous men on earth based on sinlessness. Was Solomon wrong? Solomon said again, in 1 Kgs 8:46:
"...(for there is no man that sins not,) ..."
The fact is, all the patriarchs sinned as well and therefore were not perfectly righteous in the sense that Yahweh is. They were righteous, not because they never sinned (never transgressed any of Yahweh's commandments), but because they lived by faith, and that faith was imputed to them for righteousness (Gen.15:6).
So why did Paul use "righteous" in Rom.3:10? Because Paul understood as did David and Solomon, that it only takes one sin (one unrighteous act) to become unjust and unrighteous. Since Paul was paraphrasing and not quoting verbatim, he understands "none that does good" to mean "every man has committed an act or acts of unrighteousness." If none do good, none are perfectly righteous. The two words are synonymous in Pr.14:19:
"The evil bow before the good; and the wicked at the gates of the righteous."
Yahshua was sinless. Therefore, he is the only absolutely righteous man that ever lived. His righteousness is imparted to us through faith paving the way for our justification apart from the law.
Justifying the Wicked
In Ex.23:7, Yahweh says, "for I will not justify the wicked." Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of teaching the exact opposite in Rom.4:5 which reads as follows:
"But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the wicked, his faith is reckoned for righteousness."
If we read Ex.23:7 in context, including verses 1-6, we will notice that Yahweh precedes His statement in verse 7 with a list of at least ten commands. His meaning in verse 7, therefore, is that He will not justify the wicked in their wickedness. Paul teaches the same thing and intended the same meaning in Rom.4:5.
In Acts 17:30, Paul says the following:
"The times of ignorance therefore [Elohim] overlooked; but now he commands men that they should all everywhere repent:"
Paul calls for the wicked to repent (turn away from their sin). In Rom.4:5, Paul is teaching that Yahweh will justify the wicked after they repent, believe and have faith. This is why Paul quotes from Psalm 32 in Romans 4:7 and says, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered." This is exactly what Yahweh taught in Hab.2:4, "the just shall live by faith."
Call No Man Your Father
Paul wrote, in 1 Cor.4:15;
"For though you have ten thousand tutors in Messiah, yet have you not many fathers; for in Messiah Yahshua I begat you through the gospel."
Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of not obeying Yahshua's command in Mt.23:9 to call no man "father".
However, Yahshua himself and every New Testament writer except Jude used the word "father" in reference to men. James calls Abraham "our father" in Ja.2:21 as did Stephen in Acts 7:2.Therefore, we are not to understand Yahshua's words as anti-Paulists interpret them.
Yahweh says to "honor thy father and thy mother". If I then say, "I would like to honor my father in a special way," am I breaking Yahshua's command? Obviously not, for Yahshua probably had practices similar to the Roman Catholic practice of calling their priests, "Father so and so" in mind.
Justification by Faith or Works?
Anti-Paulists are quick to bring up the supposed contradictions in Paul's teaching of justification by faith alone and what James taught in James 2.
Paul wrote:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28)
James wrote:
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)
Interestingly, both apostles use the same verse (Gen.15:6) to support their position.
Paul wrote:
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed Elohim, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Rom.4:3)
James wrote:
"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed Elohim, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of Elohim." (James 2:23)
To understand this seeming contradiction, we need to understand that each apostle is looking at justification from a different viewpoint. For example, two people can look at a triangle. One may only see a triangle while the other sees a square! How can that be? They were both viewing a pyramid; one from the side and the other from the top.
Paul is looking at justification in it's initial stage (when a person first believes). James is looking at justification after one first believes. Paul sees Abraham's faith (belief in Yahweh) prior to Abraham's work of offering up Isaac. James sees Abraham's works of offering up Isaac as a fruit of his faith (after he was justified by faith).
James did not say, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith" (James 2:24). He added the word "only" after "faith". In other words, faith comes first, but it cannot stand alone. It must be accompanied by good works.
In writing about justification, Paul was not addressing the believers behavior after having been justified. Had he addressed justification from James' viewpoint, he undoubtedly would have agreed with him. Both apostles believed the words of Habakkuk 2:4b:
"but the just shall live by his faith."
The Greek word "dikaioo", translated "justified" in James 2:24, means "to render (i.e. to show or regard as) just or innocent." Therefore, Abraham was "regarded" by Yahweh as being justified through faith, but he also "showed" he was justified by his works.
Paul the Hypocrite?
Gal.2:11-14 states, "But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, live as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compel thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
1 Cor.9:19-22 read, "For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to [Elohim], but under law to Messiah, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."
1 Cor 10:31-33 read, "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of [Elohim]. Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the called out of Elohim: even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved."
The anti-Paulist then says:
"Why does Paul rebuke Peter for not giving offense to the circumcised and yet he himself says we should give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks and that Paul himself had become as a Jew to reach Jews and like a Greek to reach Greeks? Does Paul have a double standard?"
Is Paul being a hypocrite with a double standard? The answer is found in the motive of each man's actions. Paul's motive is found in 1 Cor.9:22:
"To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."
Peter's motive is found in Gal.2:12.
"For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision."
Paul acted out of love and Peter acted out of fear. What does the Apostle John teach about fear?
"There is no fear in love: but perfect love casts out fear, because fear hath torment; and he that fears is not made perfect in love." 1 Jn.4:18
Peter's fear of the Jews led to the fruit of hypocrisy and was a manifestation of a lack of love on his part. Motive is the key.
Circumcision
Now we come to the two most difficult teachings of Paul, circumcision and eating meat sacrificed to idols. First we shall consider circumcision.
Acts 21:27-28 states the following:
"And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man that teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this holy place."
The anti-Paulist then says,
"To me it seems clear that the Jews from Asia are upset with Paul in particular for bringing uncircumcised men into the temple in violation of the words of Ezekiel. "
That is stated as fact by this anti_paulist author. However, in verse 29, Luke says:
"For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple."
In other words, Paul was being falsely accused of polluting the temple. They assumed he brought Trophimus into the temple, but they never actually saw him do that. A similar instance can be found where Naboth the Jezreelite was falsely accused of cursing Elohim and the king, and even stoned, yet he had committed no crime (1 Kings 21:5-16).The remaining seven chapters of Acts are all related to Paul's defense against those same false accusations. It is ironic that those same false accusations are being leveled against Paul even today, and by professing brethren in Messiah, nonetheless!.
1 Cor.7:17-20 read as follows:
"Only, as the Master hath distributed to each man, as [Elohim] hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the assemblies. Was any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of [Elohim]. Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called."
The anti-Paulist would then say,
This last statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians is particularly troubling since he clearly seems to indicate that if you are called when you were not circumcised then you should REMAIN uncircumcised. Why then, we must ask, does Paul have Timothy circumcised if, by his own instruction, a man should remain uncircumcised if he was "called" while uncircumcised?
We need to note that 1 Corinthians was written after Paul's first visit to Corinth in Acts 18:1-17. Therefore, Timothy's circumcision in Acts 16 and Titus' avoidance of circumcision referred to in Gal.2:3-5 and which took place in Acts 15, where both before Paul's statements in 1 Cor.17.
Note in Galatians 2:3-5, Paul refused to submit to the false brethren who demanded Titus' circumcision. It reads,
"But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Messiah Yahshua, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
This shows Paul's consistency in his teaching that Gentile converts need not be circumcised. After the Jerusalem council's decision, which agrees with Paul's teaching in that circumcision was not one of the four requirements imposed on Gentiles, Paul has Timothy circumcised. Does this contradict his belief? No.
Timothy was being chosen to accompany Paul in his ministry. Had Timothy remained uncircumcised, it would have been a great hindrance to Paul's ministry to the Jews in that area. Timothy evidently agreed to "become as a Jew to win the Jews."
Paul was not giving a steadfast command to which there could be no exceptions. Since Timothy was not fully a Gentile, his extenuating circumstance warranted a different approach. He was not being circumcised in order to be saved, but so that others would be saved. Had Timothy not been chosen for the ministry, there would have been no need to circumcise him.
Paul was not teaching against circumcision itself, but against circumcision for the wrong reason. To be circumcised in order to be saved or justified is wrong and is a denial of salvation by grace through faith.
Meats Sacrificed To Idols
I would like to conclude this study by examining Paul's stand on eating meats sacrificed to idols. Paul's position is this: seeing that an idol is nothing, there is nothing wrong with eating the sacrificial meat unless it causes someone to stumble. Anti-Paulists would say that contradicts the Jerusalem council's decree in Acts 15 and Yahshua's words in Rev.2:14 & 20.
The Jerusalem council's decree was that the Gentiles were to abstain from things offered to idols (Acts 15:20). The Greek reads, "to hold back from pollutions of the idols." Acts 15:29 in the KJV reads, "that you abstain from meats offered to idols." The Greek reads, "to abstain from idol sacrifices." Acts 21:25 reads, "keep themselves from things offered to idols." The Greek reads, "to keep from themselves the both idol sacrifices and the blood . . ."
As you can see, there is no reference to eating the meat of those sacrifices. We can infer that, but it doesn't make it clear. The council may be decreeing that they simply abstain from sacrificing to idols.
Keep in mind two important points as you ponder this issue; 1) There is no direct command in Torah from Yahweh to not eat meat sacrificed to idols and 2) The Jerusalem council's decree was never sent to the Corinthians. Acts 15:23 says,
"And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:"
Those three locations are just north of Israel. Corinth is at least 1,000 miles away in Greece across the Aegean Sea. Paul was not told to deliver the decree to any other Gentile areas. Verse 30 shows that Paul obeyed the council and delivered the decree.
Concerning point #1: Some appeal to Ex.34:12-16 for such a command. It reads as follows:
"Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goes, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other mighty one: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous El: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their mighty ones, and do sacrifice unto their mighty ones, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their mighty ones, and make thy sons go a whoring after their mighty ones."
Notice there is no direct command from Yahweh saying not to eat meat sacrificed to an idol. What He forbids is the making of a covenant with non-Israelites which may then lead to idolatry and idolatrous eating. When a covenant is made between two parties they become bound together in a special relationship.
Paul was in total agreement with Ex.34:12-16. He admonished the Corinthians to avoid such bonds in 2 Cor.6:14-18. It reads as follows:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Messiah with Belial? or what part hath he that believes with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of Elohim with idols? for ye are the temple of the living Elohim; as Elohim hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith [Yahweh], and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith [Yahweh] Almighty."
However, when Paul tells the Corinthians that it is permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as they do not cause another to stumble, he is saying that in the context of NOT being in a covenant relationship (unequally yoked) at the time. To simply sit down and eat a meal because you are hungry is totally different than sitting down with an idolater with whom you have covenanted and partaking in his idolatry by eating his sacrifice.
Paul said:
"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to Elohim: and I would not that you should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Master, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Master's table, and of the table of devils." (1 Cor.10:20-21)
The "fellowship" comes when one places themselves in that special bonded relationship. There is no such fellowship when one simply buys a piece of meat at a meat market, even if it was sacrificed to an idol. Believers can have fellowship with each other through Messiah. We can have no fellowship with unbelievers unless we join with them through some sort of mutual bond such as a covenant, contract, sexual relations, etc.
What about Numbers 25:1-3?
"And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their mighty ones: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their mighty ones. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel."
Notice what was done as a prelude to eating meat sacrificed to idols; they committed whoredom. In other words, they joined themselves to Moab through sexual relations. They created an intimate bond of fellowship which made their eating idolatrous.
Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 6:16:
"What? know you not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."
A sexual relationship creates a bond of oneness between the two. This is why Yahweh warned Israel in Ex.34:12-16 about making a covenant, especially through marriage, with non-Israelites.
Paul was not condoning eating meat sacrificed to an idol while in such a covenant relationship whether through marriage, fornication, contract, or otherwise.
With those things in mind, how do we harmonize Paul with Rev.2:14 & 20? Theses verses read as follows:
"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication." (14)
"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols." (20)
The key word in understanding this issue is "stumblingblock" in verse 14. Balak caused Israel to stumble by having them do something they believed was wrong. Israel believed such meat to be "common" or defiled. Jezebel did the same thing by seducing believers to do the same. The issue in Rev.2 is exactly what Paul taught in Romans 14:13-15.
"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Master Yahshua, that there is nothing common of itself: but to him that esteems any thing to be common, to him it is common. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walk thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Messiah died."
Israel esteemed meat sacrificed to idols to be defiled. Yahweh never said it was, but Israel believed it was. They did not have the deeper understanding that Paul and the Corinthians had that an idol was nothing. So for Israel to eat such meat was to them a sin, but to Paul it was nothing.
Conclusion
In conclusion brethren, the Apostle Paul was truly that, an Apostle appointed and sent by Yahshua himself. His writings, when properly exegeted and rightly understood, were and are a blessing to millions of believers. May they continue to be so.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1259
Loc: St Bess, Jamaica
Offline
Again Mr Slippery you try to baffle me with a whole bunch of quotes and nor address the passage I asked about. Here it is again: Tman: 4) PAUL LIED Acts 9:19-29 "Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me." Acts 26:19-21 Contradicted by: Galatians: 15 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Some of the contradictions are: 1) Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?). 2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to Jerusalem. It explicitly states that "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles." So this is claimed to be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia. 3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles. He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles" Rather, it claims that he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "three years" after his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting with them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James. 4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in and out of Jerusalem" preaching "boldly" to the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James. He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown by face to the churches of Judea," they would also not have "heard only" of his conversion but would have eye-witnessed his bold campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes. If the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of his own "salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus' words, or other matters?
Also I am waiting on your answers to my rebuttal above, so try not to slip that one too.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1259
Loc: St Bess, Jamaica
Offline
What do today's Muslims need and what does Islam have to offer? A brief introduction: This is an acclaimed Eid-ul-fitr khutba (edited) given by Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem Mohammad in Kingston, Ontario, Canada in early 1997. The article is oratorical as it was intended for a general audience in a mosque. It tells us one of the major reasons why Muslims are suffering today. Dr. Sherif Mohammad's articles (include published books) have intellectual depths and are focused yet they have great literary flows that make the reading pleasant and refreshing. He is a noted Islamic thinker-writer and historian. He is an academic who teaches engineering. Assalam'Alaikum brothers and sisters, Today, we are in fact celebrating our Islam, our being members of the greatest faith ever revealed to mankind, our being believers in the most beautiful and the most comprehensive scripture that ever descended from heaven to earth, our being followers of the greatest man that ever walked on the face of the earth, our being believers in Allah, the One and Only. Had we not been Muslims, we would have not been here today.We would have not known Ramadan, not experienced the sweetness of the fast, not tasted the beauty of the prayers, we would have not known that today is Eid. Today we are celebrating, first and foremost, that we are Muslims. We are celebrating the greatest blessing of our lives: our Islam. Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. Islam is the religion that Allah has chosen for us, has perfected for us, and has granted us as the Quran has eloquently expressed "This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." (5:3) Islam is a favor, Islam is a privilege, Islam is a bounty from Allah. Islam does not need us. We need Islam. All we have to do is to be grateful for such a great blessing and say, "Praise be to Allah who has guided us to this: never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of Allah" (7:43) But why is it that we believe that Islam is such a tremendous bounty from Allah? Because there is nothing like Islam on earth: It is Islam that has taught human beings that the Lord their God is One and Only. That He has no partners, no wife, and no son, and that there can be no compromise on the unity of God. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all equal and that no Arab is superior to non-Arab, nor a non-Arab is superior to an Arab and that the best of all of us is the one who is most righteous. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all brothers and sisters created from a single pair of a male and a female. Therefore, Islam, unlike Hinduism, neither recognizes nor condones the idea of a caste system. Islam is at war on caste systems, on aristocracies, and hereditary social groups of all kinds. It is Islam that has taught humanity the value of the intellect, the importance of reflection, and the role of the mind in attaining faith. Christians teach that one can never become a believer except when the Holy Spirit mysteriously occupies one's heart. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured. It is Islam that has taught humanity that people of all races, all colours, all ethnicities are perfectly capable of attaining faith in the One and Only God. Hindus believe that Hinduism is just for those privileged to be born in the faith and therefore they do not invite the "less privileged" to embrace their faith. Jews believe that they are the chosen race and even when they accept others to embrace Judaism, those converts are always lower in rank than those born as Jews. Islam rejects all that and calls upon all people of all backgrounds to submit themselves to their Creator. Once they do, they automatically become members of the community of Islam with the same rights and duties as any other Muslim. Islam is not, and can never be, the monopoly of one race or a certain linguistic group.
It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is absolutely Just and Merciful and that He will never punish one person for the sins of others. Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve had bequeathed their sin to all their descendants and thus all humans are born in this "Original Sin" and therefore Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed on the cross to redeem humanity of its 'original sin.' Islam says, NO. Humans are not born in sin. No person will be held accountable for another's mistakes. Every soul will pay for its own deeds, only. Divine justice is absolute. It is Islam that has taught humanity that righteous deeds are necessary for salvation. Faith is indispensable, but not sufficient. Humans will be admitted to Paradise by their faith and their righteous acts. They have to go together, hand in hand. Many Christian denominations teach that faith in Jesus is enough for salvations. If you accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross, then you are saved regardless of what you may do afterwards because Jesus has already paid for all your sins. Islam totally disagrees. No one can pay for your sins. Faith, doing righteousness, avoiding evil, and continuous repentance are the only ways for salvation. Islam does not accept, nor condone the corrupting influence on the individual as well as the society that can be caused by the idea of a "guaranteed" salvation. It is Islam that has taught humanity how to balance the needs of this life and the next. Islam does not accept the idea that renunciation of this world is the best means to get salvation in the next. Catholicism and Buddhism teach that by living a reclusive life, one can attain higher spirituality. Buddhism even taught the recluse must make his living by begging. Islam rejects the whole notion of the alleged goodness of renouncing the world. Islam teaches that best means for advancement in the next life is by getting involved in the affairs of this world by commanding good and forbidding evil; by helping one another in righteousness and piety; by doing Jihad, by struggling against all forms of evil, injustice, tyranny, intolerance...Islam does not teach rejection of the world, it teaches involvement, struggle, and change. It is Islam that has taught humanity that kindness to parents, to kin, to neighbours, and to fellow humans is an essential part of faith and righteousness. Christianity claims that Jesus has taught that one cannot come closer to God unless one hates one's father, mother, wife, children,...(Luke 14:26) Islam teaches the opposite. One cannot come closer to God unless one acts so kindly towards one's mother, father, family, neighbuors, etc. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is very close to them and that He is with them wherever they are and that He hears their prayers and responds to them. Islam teaches that God is so close that He needs no intermediaries to mediate between Him and His servants. Islam does not accept the concept of priesthood and clergy acting as mediators between God and humans. Islam teaches that one does not have to confess one's sins to a priest in order to get forgiveness. One can simply confess one's sins to God without any human intervention, seek forgiveness, and God will grant it. Many Jews today still believe that prayers cannot reach God and get a response from Him unless the prayer is made at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Some even fax their prayers or send it via the Internet to Jerusalem so that someone there would take it and put it on the Wailing Wall to reach God. Islam teaches that wherever one maybe, one can pray to God, confess to God, seek God's help and forgiveness, and God will certainly respond. No human intervention is needed, no special place or time is necessary. God is always very close. It is Islam that has taught humans to accept and respect their human nature. Islam recognizes the strengths, the weaknesses, and the needs of humans. Islam never requires humans to behave as angels or to ignore their physical and emotional needs. Christianity does not allow divorce. Islam recognizes it as a human reality. Catholicism considers celibacy an ideal. Islam does not. The Anglican Church frowns upon second marriages. Prince Charles in order to become King of England has to behave as a practicing Anglican. Therefore, he can commit adultery openly with his famous mistress but he cannot marry her or else he will lose the throne for violating the rules of the Church of England. Islam never engages in such irrationality and moral contradictions. There is nothing like Islam on earth. There is no faith, no religion, no ideology, no system of belief that can rival Islam in its clarity and simplicity; in its submission to God, the One and Only; in its rationality and intellectual depth; in its egalitarianism and equality; in its spirituality; in its code of ethics; in its unparalleled balance between the needs of this life and the demands of the hereafter. Islam has elevated the human soul, body, and mind to heights that have never been reached by any other faith or tradition. Islam is the only religion that has truly enabled human beings to fulfill their humanity. Islam is like a perfect piece of art at which the human eye can keep looking and scrutinizing for days, weeks, years on end and still can find no flaws, no defects, and no contradictions. All the human eye can do is to keep wondering at the amazing beauty and coherence of this faith of ours: Islam. Leopold Wiess, the Austrian Jew who embraced Islam in 1926 and became one of the greatest Muslim intellects of the twentieth century has expressed the same level of astonishment at the overwhelming beauty and coherence of Islam, "I was asked, time and again: 'Why did you embrace Islam? What was it that attracted you particularly?' -- and I must confess: I don't know of any satisfactory answer. It was not any particular teaching that attracted me, but the whole wonderful, inexplicably coherent structure of moral teaching and practical life programme. I could not say, even now, which aspect of it appeals to me more than any other. Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other: nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. Probably this feeling that everything in the teachings and postulates of Islam is 'in its proper place,' has created the strongest impression on me." In a nutshell, Islam is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is important to note that Islam is not just a set of ideals, it is a tremendous force capable of transforming and regenerating individuals as well as societies and whole nations. The influence of Islam upon the first society that embraced it, the Arabian peninsula, was nothing short of a revolution. Islam has revolutionized Arabia in all aspects of life: politically, economically, socially, and above all morally: It was Islam that transformed the fiercely independent-minded Arabs who knew no government, obeyed no authority, recognized no state into a nation with a government, a capital, and a respected authority. It was Islam that taught the anarchic Arabs how to elect a head of state from among themselves and how to run their government upon principles of mutual consultation. It was Islam that taught the Arabs who never agreed on any form of law to build a nation based on the rule of one sacred, just, and merciful law. Islam also taught them that they were all equals before the law and no one even the daughter of the Prophet was above the law. It was Islam that transformed the intensely militant Arabs from a group of tribes massacring each other all the time -- to the extent that they had to agree on four months of peace every year to prevent their whole race from extinction due to the incessant wars -- into one nation with united tribal armies able to confront and defeat the armies of the surrounding superpowers: the Byzantines and the Sassanids. It was Islam that abolished usury from Arabia and taught the Arabs how to make business transactions justly and fairly without exploitation or abuse. It was Islam that abolished the gruesome habit of female infanticide from Arabia. It was Islam that taught the Arabs that women were full human beings, not mere chattel, and that they were their sisters in humanity and in faith. It was Islam that guaranteed for Arabian women their rights to: inheritance, property, divorce, and independent legal personality. It was Islam that eradicated alcohol, with all its evils, from Arabia. It was Islam that ended all forms of prostitution, gambling, and intoxicants from the Arabian society. And it was Islam that opened all doors for freeing slaves. It was Islam that uprooted racism from the Arab mind completely to the extent that the deeply racist and arrogant Arabs would accept to be soldiers in armies whose leaders were black Africans. And above all, it was Islam that transformed the idolatrous and superstitious Arabs into believers in the One and Only God. It was Islam that transformed them from idol worshippers into a people who stand together in one line in prayer and prostrate their heads to the Almighty. Arabia before Islam was a society bound by tradition and precedent. Whatever was customary was right and proper. Whatever the forefathers had done deserved to be imitated. Islam rejected this blind faith in tradition. Islam challenged all the customs of the society. Islam questioned all the mores and manners of the Arabs. Islam introduced to them the standards of morality and the fundamentals of right and wrong. Islam taught them how to think critically of everything around them and how to reject the bad habits and keep the good ones. Islam showed them the proper way for peace and happiness in this life and felicity in the next. This was the essence of the revolution that Islam was. The question that irresistibly comes to the mind is this: that was the past, what about now? Can Islam revolutionize the world today as it did to seventh century Arabia? Is Islam relevant today? Does Islam have anything to offer today's world? Yes, a great deal. For us, Muslims living in the West, it would be reasonable to focus on what Islam has to offer to our Western society at the dawn of a new millennium. The West, as the seventh century Arabia and as any other society for that matter, has its own virtues as well as vices. Islam can improve and enhance all the virtues while eliminating -- or, at least, minimizing -- the vices. In a society where alcohol is the number one cause of criminal death and injury; where alcohol costs billions of dollars each year in medical expenses and property damage; where alcohol consumption causes the death of hundreds of thousands of people annually; where alcohol is a major cause of rape and domestic violence -- Is there any faith more able than Islam to prevent all the ills of alcohol? In a society still tormented by racial strife; where "black" churches are continuously fire-bombed by bigots of all kinds; where one rarely sees a black person in a "white" church or a white person in a "black" church -- Islam has so much to offer because Islam does not tolerate the very idea of a "black" mosque or a "white" mosque; Islam obliges believers to stand together in one line, shoulder to shoulder and foot to foot, and prostrate their foreheads to God so that they learn they are all humble servants of the Almighty. In a society where violence against women has risen to alarming proportions, where it is not safe for women to walk alone in the dark, where even institutions of higher learning have to provide 'walk home service' to protect women on campus at night - Islam has much more to contribute than escort services or karate lessons. Islam does implant modesty and sense of propriety in the minds of the believers, Islam eradicates vulgarity, Islam eliminates any possibility that men view women as sex objects. In a society as violent as the United States where some 25000 lives are taken every year by handguns alone; where 5% of the world population consume 50% of the world's illegal drugs despite the arrest of some 700,000 drug dealers every year; where a car is stolen every few seconds; where a woman is raped every few minutes - Islam has a lot more to offer than merely putting more cops in the streets. Islam teaches that prevention is better than cure and that crime can best be reduced by taking care of the family, the community, and the neighbourhood. Islam attaches great esteem and honour to the role of the mother because when she takes proper care of her children, the whole society benefits. Islam reminds the fathers of their duties, encourages the neighbours to take care of each other's needs, strengthen community bonds, advocates commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong instead of apathy and individualism. Islam always eliminates problems from their roots. In a society afflicted with intense individualism, excessive materialism, fierce consumerism, and unabashed sensualism; Islam has the intellectual and the spiritual power required to rectify all the excesses of the society because Islam preaches moderation and balance in all worldly and other-worldly affairs. The influence of Islam is not limited to the social and moral domains, it extends to the political, economic, legal, cultural, and educational realms as well. Two examples should suffice. In the realm of politics: the egalitarian nature of Islam requires major reforms in the way democracy is practiced in the society today. As it stands, the existing democracy is elitist and lopsided in favour of the wealthy, the powerful, and the special interests. The average person almost has no meaningful say in how things are run by the elite. This state of affairs falls far short of the ideal of mutual consultation in all affairs advocated by Islam. In the realm of economics: capitalism left unregulated has a tendency to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. In a period of ten years only (1978-1987) the poorest fifth of the American population got 8% poorer while the richest fifth got 13% richer. This is the nature of capitalism; wealth breeds more wealth, sometimes even without any effort or creativity. Islam obliges all rich people to pay part of their wealth annually to the poor so that the wealth gets redistributed in the society in order to protect the poor from perpetual poverty and give them a fair chance to compete in a world dominated by the tyranny of capital. There is so much in Islam that can truly make the West, and indeed the whole world, a safer, better, and more decent place to live in. Islam is a formidable force with potential great enough to revolutionize the world and radically change the course of history as it once did some 1400 years ago. The problem is we have got the theory, but we don't have the practitioners. We have the revolution but we do not have the revolutionaries. And as there can be no democracy without democrats, no socialism without socialists, there also can be no Islam without Muslims. Islam is a message that is in constant need for messengers to deliver it to the world. Yes, the Book of God is there, the guidance of the Prophet is there, the testimony of history is there, but where are the Muslims? Where are the messengers? Where are the revolutionaries? They effectively do not exist. What does exist in the world today is some sort of "de-Islamized" Muslims. People who call themselves Muslims but the Islam they practice is a vague shadow of the Islam described in the magnificent words of the Quran. Muslims of today practice an Islam without spirit, an Islam without a message to humanity, an Islam without a mission, an Islam without ambition... An Islam without identity. Islam will never revolutionize the world, as it once did, unless there are true Muslims, as they once existed-- Muslims from the inside-out, Muslims in thought and in action, Muslims in theory and in practice, Muslims in private and in public, Muslims in spirit, in intellect, and in emotions. The road to produce such Muslims is long and hard. It is perhaps more realistic to focus on just one good first step. This first step, I believe, would be to raise a generation of Muslim youth who take great pride in their great faith. A generation of young Muslims whose identity is purely Islamic, a generation of Muslims for whom Islam comes first and everything else - national, ethnic, racial, linguistic identity - comes, at best, a distant second-- a generation that totally believes in what the great khalifa Omar once said, " It is only because of Islam that we gained 'izzah' (honour, dignity, and pride), and if we seek 'izzah' outside of Islam, Allah will humiliate us." I once had a conversation with a brother who embraced Islam several years ago. I asked him about the things he liked or disliked the most about Islam and Muslims. His answer was, " Everything about Islam is beautiful, but there is one thing I dislike in Muslims...They do not have a great sense of pride in Islam..." The brother's point is precisely what we need to ingrain in the minds of our new generation: the sense of pride in belonging to Islam - A pride strong enough to make them declare to the whole world openly and loudly, "We are Muslims, and we are extremely proud of it."
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 506
Loc: Sacramento, California
Offline
[quote=Tman]What do today's Muslims need.
Today's Muslims need to admit that they are decieved by satan, and they need to repent and ask God to forgive them of thier sins, also they must be born again by the spirit and the blood. see Acts: 2: 38.
When Muhammad and his community came under severe persecution, eighty-three of his followers who had no protection emigrated from Mecca to Ethiopia, taking refuge in the ancient Christian country, Abyssinia.1 Under increasing boycotts and pressure, Muhammad went through a time of weakness and compromised with the Meccan pagans by acknowledging the existence of three pagan goddesses alongside Allah: Lat, Uzza, and Manat.2 The Arabian goddesses are mentioned in Sura an-Najm (Star) 53:19-22.
The statement that Allah was involved with female goddesses while Muhammad and his people were left with men, was cynically discussed by author Salman Rushdie.3 He made the impure account even more obscene. His book was regarded as utterly blasphemous by all Muslims.
When the inhabitants of Mecca heard Muhammad's confess the importance of the ancient goddesses inside the Ka'aba, they immediately revoked their ban on him. Those who had immigrated to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) started to return home after hearing Muhammad's confession and his acceptance in Mecca. But when they arrived, they were shocked to hear that Muhammad had retracted his confession and admitted that he had fallen prey to the whispering of Satan. Thus, today Islam considers Sura an-Najm (Star) 53:19-22 are related to the time when Muhammad spoke the the Satanic Verses. Salman Rushdie did not invent the Satanic verses.4
In Sura Hajj (Pilgrimage) 22:52-53, Muhammad confessed his mistake, alleging that all prophets were tempted by Satan who inspire them with demonic verses, as if they were actually revealed by God. But later on Allah abrogated those Satanic Verses with new revelations and instructs his prophets with new verses. According to Islam, Allah permits such demonic inspiration to test weak believers and to cut off those with hardened hearts.
Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom: That He may make the suggestions thrown in by Satan, but a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrong-doers are in a schism far (from the Truth): Hajj (Pilgrimage) 22:52-53. Yusuf 'Ali's translation
The true, vital issue about the Satanic verses is this. If Muhammad were unable to distinguish Satan's voice from God's voice, then could there be verses in the Qur'an that Muhammad assumed were from God but were really from Satan? Maybe much of the Qur'an is Satanic in origin, in spite of Muhammad's conviction that it was entirely from Allah.
