Rev. Sam C. King
-
10:40:38 pm on March 31, 2010 | # |
There was an article in the Huffington Post written by Yasmin Mogahed, a Muslim blogger, who somewhat defended mainstream Christianity in the wake of the foiled Hutaree terror plot.She compared the eight Michigan madmen to the countless radical Muslims who walk the streets of virtually every city in the Middle East.
Her argument summed up was basically this: “Now you know how us moderate Muslims feel.”
Ms. Mogahed lamented that moderate Muslims aren’t treated with the same respect as Christians when it comes to atrocities done in the name of their religion:
If there’s news of a Muslim terrorist, Islam becomes complicit in the crime. Yet few people are going to accuse Christianity of motivating the terrorism of the Hutaree militia. These Christian terrorists are considered violent criminals who’ve perverted a peaceful religion.
Muslim terrorists, on the other hand, are just following a violent, perverted religion. A Christian terrorist is considered violent in spite of his or her faith, whereas a Muslim is violent because of it. Some might claim that this assumption is because the Quran is full of violent passages while the Bible teaches only peace and love. But in a recent NPR piece, religion historian Philip Jenkins explained that in fact there is more violence in the Bible than in the Quran. “Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins said. He explained that violence in the Quran is largely defensive.
Since this was the basis of her gripe, it might be good to address the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity, in case we all forgot.
First, her basic assumption that Muslims are discriminated against, is quite ridiculous. the word discrimination implies that someone has done nothing to deserve the prejudice that is being directed against them.
It’s not brain surgery to imagine why a coffee-house full of people would be a little on-edge if a Muslim walked in to the place sporting a cloak and a turban.
If Ms. Mogahed and the rest of the “moderate Muslims” spent more time chastising their hostile brethren rather than pointing their finger and chastising innocent civilians, we might be able to make some headway.
But, that will never happen.
See, Ms. Mogahed knows that her radical brothers and sisters are simply doing what the Qur’an commands them to do, and she knows trying to argue with them about it is futile because it’s in black and white. So, she and the rest of the “moderate Muslims” blame everyone else instead.
The reason the religion of Islam is unquestionably to blame for Muslim terrorism is because the Qur’an and the Hadith specifically command violent action be carried out against the ”infidels”:
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. —Qur’an 2:191
Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him. —Bukhari 52:177
There are countless other Qur’anic verses which follow in this same vein and this is why the religion of Islam is implicated in terrorist plots. The reality is that Islam’s followers are just carrying out what is commanded of them.
The very nature of Christianity represents something entirely different. Jesus was and is the epitome of sacrificial love, not violence and mayhem. I don’t think it takes a genius to figure that one out.
Ms. Mogahed, our fearless Muslim blogger, then proceeds into entering a pissing match with Christianity by saying that the Holy Bible has far more violent passages in its pages than the Qur’an, according to National Public Radio.
Let’s say, for a moment, that this is true…
The Bible is a historical document that records many things. Not only does it recount Jewish wars, but also Bedouin wars. Ironically, most of the wars mentioned in the Holy Bible were stirred up by Bedouin tribes, not the Jewish ones.
The fact that the Holy Bible has “more” violent content within its pages doesn’t mean that the bible advocates for violence.
Take, for example, the incident where King David committed adultery then murdered one of his men. The Bible mentions this violent act, but in no way supports his actions. In fact, Scripture strongly condemned his actions.
Another important piece of information left out by our good friends at NPR is the fact that the founder of Christianity performed miracles, forgave those who were trying to kill Him, and taught on love.
The founder of Islam was quite different.
He gained power and notoriety by force. You could say he used “terrorism” to force other tribes to submit to him and his absurd beliefs.
The simple fact is that any terrorism (which happens once in a blue moon) that may result from a “Christian” is based upon their own ideology, and in no way can be traced to the Holy Bible. Any terrorism that results from a Muslim, most definitely stems from a direct command from a particular verse in the Qur’an.
Mervyn Charles 03:07 on 04.01.2010 | #
Christians and Muslims are afraid to examine their Scripture for the truth about the Messiah and they both follow tradition rather than their respective Scripture when having to face their differences in the name of the Messiah and whether he was crucified or not.
Muslims accept the confirmation of the Quran that the Messiah was not crucified but they reject the confirmation of the same Quran that the Messiah’s name was Isa and not Jesus and so they falsely preach a prophet Jesus of Islam.
Christians reject Islam’s view on the crucifixion but they seem to accept that Jesus was a prophet of Islam who is not considered by the Muslims to be the son of God.
The Quran is quite clear about the Messiah and the Bible actually agrees with the Quran that there was a hoax to the crucifixion and also a hoax to the name Jesus as applied to the Biblical Christ, but Muslims and Christians are extremely fearful about opening the Scriptures to see this agreement as it exposes the both sides of being astray from the Scriptures and from the truth.
The Age Of Reason by M A Raheem and Mervyn C Charles examines the Scriptures and arrives at proof of the truth of the hoax of the name of Jesus and the crucifixion but Muslims and Christians turn away from being faced with the reality.
The Quran puts its confirmation in the words of the translation as, “That they said, we killed the Messiah Isa, the son of Mariam, the Apostle of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for a surety they killed him not” Quran 4:157
To say that Jesus was crucified would be wholly true according to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John of the New Testament of the Bible, and this would depend on the true identity of Jesus.
To say that the Messiah or Christ was crucified would definitely be false and misleading and contrary to the claim of the Quran, and the evidence of Scripture as contained in the Bible.
The name of Jesus is a New Testament name that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, so that the Old Testament of the Bible disagrees with, or, it cannot be said to be in total agreement with this name that is used to identify the Messiah in the New Testament, but the Quran confirms the Hoax of the crucifixion and the Bible reveals the intricacies of the Hoax for all who wish to see truth.
The Quran never uses the false name of Jesus and, try as you can; there is no way that Isa can be turned into Jesus, nor can you force Allah to say what He did not.
The four Gospels are the claimants of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and they are the Gospels of the crucifixion by four, that is to say, that they are used in repetition of the alleged crucifixion, but they are certainly not the Gospels of the fulfillment of the prophecy of the child as named in the prophecy and command of the Lord God of Israel of the Book of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) of the Old Testament of the Bible.
Two of the four Gospels (Matthew and Luke) make mention of the naming of the infant Messiah with the name of Jesus, which name defies the prophecy and command of the Lord God of Israel. (Isaiah 7:14)
Jesus of the Gospels replaces Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), which is referred to as Emmanuel (Matthew1: 23). This represents an annulment of the command of the Lord, by an angel of the Lord, after the child was conceived in the mother’s womb (Matthew 1:20-21).
Matthew attempts to justify this annulment of the command of the Lord as a fulfillment of the prophecy as “spoken” by the prophet (Matthew 1:22), but the prophecy is again altered, with the authority for naming the child being shifted from the virgin to “they,” whoever they may be.
The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming, “a virgin shall be with child.” (Matthew 1: 23)
Luke reports that an Angel of God, Gabriel by name, appears to the virgin before conception (Luke 1:26-31), which would be before Matthew’s angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph “in a dream,” after conception. (Matthew1: 20)
Luke appears to be reading his command to the virgin from the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) as he states, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luke 1:31) Here, Luke agrees with the earlier prophecy that the virgin shall name the son, with the exception and/or alteration of Immanuel, (Isaiah 7:14) and/or Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23) with the insertion of JESUS.
Luke goes one step further and reports the naming of the child eight days after his birth, at his circumcision, at which time, “his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)
Luke comes after the duplicated crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, by which time Matthew has already named the child, who has twice gone through the crucifixion of Jesus King of the Jews.
Luke introduces a different chronological order of events that does not help to remove uncertainty and confusion, so that the breach of the command of the Lord God of Israel comes from what can be said to be:
• One or two different angels (the angel is not named in Matthew while Gabriel is the angel of Luke),
• In two different locations, (to Joseph, after he became conscious of her pregnancy, while he slept, in Matthew, and to Mary, before conception in Luke),
• On two separate occasions, (which is quite obvious, being before and after conception).
We are informed by Luke that the mother was aware that “that which was conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1: 20), before she conceived and after she “was espoused to a man named Joseph” (Luke 1: 27), and yet Joseph was not considered until after he contemplated putting her away for being unfaithful. This confusion and scandal must be viewed as no more than a sacrilegious distortion of Scripture.
We have Joseph being authorized to name the child Jesus in Matthew by the angel (Matthew 1:21) to which he complied (Matthew 1: 25). The mother is authorized to name the child Jesus in Luke (Luke 1:31), to which Luke offers no evidence that she did comply. Both Gospels therefore do agree that the virgin was in no way responsible for the alteration of the name of her child nor for the confusion in the naming of the child with an improper name.
Muslims and Christians conceal their misunderstanding in Yeshua and Joshua as Jesus when Yeshua or Joshua translates Yah or Jah is Salvation.
The four Gospels also carry the Hoax that far while it is left to the reader to bring the Hoax into the open by bringing the Gospels together into one story and bringing the jigs of the jig-saw puzzle in place to show the chronology of events and the truth of the beautiful planning and the execution of the plan and the two thieves named Jesus.
TRUTH IN THE BIBLE IS: “And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29), meaning, I cant save you. You have got to save yourself by your own hands and your own effort.
TRUTH IN THE BIBLE IS: “Think not that I am come to send peace on Earth. I came not to send peace but the sword.” (Matthew 10:34) The War on Terrorism today began in Jerusalem and is more intense internationally now than when it began, with the three main combatants being Israel, the Muslims and Christians.
V Long 08:37 on 04.01.2010 | #
Replying to Mervyn Charles: You have your theology of the Bible completely confused and convoluted. For the sake of space and time, I will only address a couple things you state. Perhaps you should avail yourself to all the many commentaries on the bible by biblical scholars and get an overall more accurate interpretation of everything you have cited about the bible. The Bible has been in existence for hundreds and hundreds of years, more so for the Old Testament. It has been studied over and over and over, by scholars, and no one can find major discrepancy or error because biblical scripture is so accurate it interprets itself. There have been major archeological finds and history itself to prove the authenticity of the Bible and the people of the bible, as well as Jesus’ existence and death on the cross. We have writings from the first century (such as Josepheus) that confirm many of the New Testament accounts, as stated by the disciples. Also, of the many Old Testament prophesies that foretold the coming of Jesus, or the Messiah, and the details surrounding his birth, every single one transpired exactly as it was foretold. Do you realize the odds of that? It is quite staggering. We also know who old the old testament writings and prophesies are now that we have the Dead Sea Scrolls. In regard to Matthew 5:29, Jesus is not teaching self-mutiliation or that His yet to come shedding of blood sacrifice on the cross will not save us. What He is saying is that we should deal as drastically as necessary with our own sin. Sin in a believer’s life can be conquered only by radical spiritual surgery. We are to be sensitive toward others but radical concerning the sins in our own lives as Christians. Also, we are told not to judge others. The difference between a true Christian and a Muslim is that a true Christian receives the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit once he/she embraces Jesus and what Jesus did for us on the cross. This is the supernatural unseen miracle of salvation and results in our being justified with God. (John 3:7) And this supernatural experience has happened to many Muslims, which is why they risk their lives to follow Jesus. It is REAL. The Holy Spirit in us is ever convicting us of our sins and helping us to grow spiritually to become more and more Christ-like. We are expected and taught in God’s word to turn from sin but that is not what saves us. What saves us and what justifies us, what gives us “peace with God” is embracing Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for our sins. Once we receive the Holy Spirit, to go on perpetually and willfully sinning is an affront to God’s salvation and grieves the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30) so we are in a constant battle to overcome sin due to our sin nature. But God didn’t leave us on our own to do that battle…He sends His Holy Spirit to dwell in us to guide and counsel us and draw us to His word and give us constant desire to obey and love Him. (John 14:15-16) With regard to Matthew 10:34, at first glance this saying sounds like a contradiction of Isaiah 9:6 (Prince of Peace), Luke 2:14 (on earth peace to men) and John 14:27 (Peace I leave with you). It is true that Christ came to bring peace – that is, peace between the believer and God, and peace among humans. Yet the inevitable result of Christ’s coming is conflict – between Him and the AntiChrist, between light and darkenss (the world system vs. God’s word), and between Christians and those who have no belief in God, even between Christians and Muslims. This conflict can occur even between members of the same family (between one who believes and one who doesn’t). It is usually the unbelievers who are either scoffing, making fun of or in some way persecuting the Christian. Christians are told to love the “sinner” or unbeliever, but hate or keep from engaging in the unbeliever’s sins. The fact is, a true believer is constantly examining him/herself for their own sins and not all that preoccupied with the sins of unbelievers. We are told to love our enemies. This is the antithesis of the Islam religion…they are told to kill their so-called perceived enemies or infedels. Christ is the epitomy of LOVE…He laid down His life for the sins of mankind, something the god of Islam and the prophet of Islam did not do.
(IJohn 3:11-24 and 4:7-21, and John 3:16)
Pam 11:48 on 04.04.2010 | #
Me and my son enjoyed reading your blog post. Keep up the good work.