"The Deuteronomy Deductions: Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was a False Prophet"
To grasp the force of the proofs, you'll need to read the article. However, I can give you the gist of the argument here. Consider the following quotations, one from the Bible, and one from Islam's History of al-Tabari.
"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak . . . that prophet shall die." ~GOD (Deuteronomy18:20)
"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken." ~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)
According to the first quotation, a prophet who delivers a message that does not come from God is not a true prophet. In the second quotation, Muhammad says that he has delivered a revelation that did not come from God!
The passage in al-Tabari refers to the infamous "Satanic Verses"--one of the most embarrassing moments in Muslim history. According to numerous ancient Muslim sources, Muhammad delivered verses that came, not from God, but from Satan. (For more on this, see "Muhammad and the Satanic Verses.")
One might object that Muslims typically believe that the Bible has been corrupted, and that a criterion taken from Deuteronomy is therefore irrelevant. On the contrary! The verse is Deuteronomy 18:20. Those familiar with Muslim apologetics will recognize this as the verse that follows Deuteronomy 18:18-19, one of the most frequently quoted passages among Muslims. This is the passage where God declares that he will send another prophet like Moses. Muslims appeal to this as their strongest biblical support for the prophethood of Muhammad. Yet, if they're going to appeal to 18:18-19 as inspired, surely they cannot reject 18:20!
But if Muslims are stuck with 18:20, they must either admit that Muhammad was a false prophet, or they must show that Muhammad never delivered the Satanic Verses. Muslims will obviously opt for the latter course, but they can only do so by throwing out nine of their own sources! Throwing out so many of their own sources, however, simply serves as proof that Muslims are not examining their records objectively. Instead, they are picking and choosing the texts that make them feel best.
10 comments:
David David, you and your habit of appealing to Muslim 'apocrypha'. Read this http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__and_the_satanic_verses
Secondly, even if the story was authentic the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could still be a Prophet in light of Deuteronomy 18:20. This verse in Deuteronomy is speaking about false Prophets in an absolute sense and does not indicate in any way that a true Prophet cannot speak Satanic revelations temporarily and unintentionally and then God comes to expose Satan’s plots, which actually shows that Satan can’t be the author of the Qur’an since he wouldn’t be exposing himself
David said...
Throwing out so many of their own sources, however, simply serves as proof that Muslims are not examining their records objectively. Instead, they are picking and choosing the texts that make them feel best.
Clearly David is ignorant of hadith methodology and how Muslims select narrations and examine their records. It is pretty clear that David is the one who picks and chooses what makes him feel best. Right David?
Stop wasting your time here and lets resume our debate.
Lets assume you are right in regards to the satanic versus - are you going to accept as a bible believing christian that manuscripts were kept out of the bible due to the fact that it didn't fit into Constantine's agenda for the Roman Empire? Do you also accept that it wasn't until after the death of Jesus when the doctrine and scriptures were standardised given that there were many different groups with different understands of Jesus and his mission? would you also concede that the issue of Jesus's divinity was up for debate before it was finally established as 'god manifested in the form of a man"? would you also concede that the trinity doesn't even meet the basic understanding of god set out by the Noahide laws - the fact that not a single Rabbi worth his weight is going to stand up and declare the trinity as monotheist?
I ask these because if you want a hypothetical concession, you also must accept that some of your 'sacred cow's' are false.
Regarding the 'satanic versus' - do you have a manuscript which you can link back to the Muhammad? I mean, if they can keep Gnostic gospels from being destroyed, one would assume that those who had a grudge against Muhammad would have ensured that a copy was kept as a way to destroy credibility - so where is the copy?
are you going to accept as a bible believing christian that manuscripts were kept out of the bible due to the fact that it didn't fit into Constantine's agenda for the Roman Empire?
No, because Constantine did not draft his own canon of Scripture, and if you'd bother to read some church history, you'd know the Arians ascended to power after the First Council of Nicea, not Trinitarians.
Do you also accept that it wasn't until after the death of Jesus when the doctrine and scriptures were standardised given that there were many different groups with different understands of Jesus and his mission?
You're conflating Gnosticism and Christianity. They are not the same religion.
would you also concede that the issue of Jesus's divinity was up for debate before it was finally established as 'god manifested in the form of a man"?
No, because his divinity was never in question, even if we concede that Gnosticism and Christianity are in the same family. The Gnostics never claimed Jesus was not divine. They claimed he was not fully human. The questions arising about the humanity of Christ were settled in the 3rd and 4th Councils, and these addressed how the human and divine natures exist in relation to each other, not the fact of their relation.
Try reading JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrine or another survey of Early Church history before making such obviously erroneous statements. We Christians go out of our way to understand Muslim history and theology and address it on its own terms; we would hope you would do the same for us. I realize you live in NZ, but it isn't as if you can't get such books over there.
And again, you don't address the issue; the issue is that theere was no standardised Christianty from day one. There were multiple groups each with their own 'book' which they claimed is the correct relevation. Some didn't include the old testament, others only included a few letters from Paul. If you actually took the time and did some research you would know I was raised a Catholic.
Even YOU conceded that the divity of Christ had to be settled after he had left - again, you say one thing, and yet, history says another. If there was a settled agreement whilst Jesus was walking around, wouldn't it be therefore true to say that the councils were surplus to requirements given that his divinity would have already been settled?
Regarding Constantine, again, you complete ignore what I wrote - what is it with Christians and their inability to read a whole paragraph and digest the whole paragraph? The issue is that there were multiple manuscripts and books floating around *SOMEONE/SOME PEOPLE HAD TO DECIDE WHAT WENT INTO THE BOOK* - did I say that loud enough? The council didn't write a damn thing, they decided which scriptures were 'genuine' inspirations of god and through the 'guidance of the holy spirit' they decided which ones should go into the new testament (the same 'holy spirit' which decides the pope - I put that in quotations for a reason, I'm sure you've got the brain power to work out the relationship between politics and religion, if not, then God help you).
Again, you fail to actually reply. You make up bullcrap arguments based on things I never said. I never raised Gnosticism, and yet you saw fit to raise it (for what reason - I don't know), you then go off on a tangent.
Kaiwai,
>> the issue is that theere was no standardised Christianty from day one. There were multiple groups each with their own 'book' which they claimed is the correct relevation. Some didn't include the old testament, others only included a few letters from Paul.
>> *SOMEONE/SOME PEOPLE HAD TO DECIDE WHAT WENT INTO THE BOOK* - did I say that loud enough?
The 'Christianity' of Jesus and his anointed disciples/apostles (who established the early church) is all that should matter. The NT (Apostolic authority) refers/quotes the OT repeatedly to affirm its claims about Jesus etc. So NT does not hang in mid air without basis on Gods revelation - on the contrary the NT uses the OT to establish its basis/legitimacy. The Muhammad too tried to use Judeo-Christian scriptures for legitimacy. Unfortunately, that was not to be - the continuity is totally lost which makes it then a new religion altogether that has nothing to do with the God as referred by Abraham-Isaac-Jacob-David' and as affirmed by Jesus of Nazareth (deviation from this is a violation of the first commandment of the Scriptures - 'Thou shall not have any other gods before me'). Yet muslims today are forced to deny the Scriptures (which, to be fair to Muhammad, he himself did not do and the Judeo-Christian scriptures are the same before and after Muhammad) - they are forced to deny because of the Muhammad’s violation of facts, moral principles, teachings, doctrine, salvation etc of Scriptures/Jesus.
>> wouldn't it be therefore true to say that the councils were surplus to requirements given that his divinity would have already been settled?
To quote from Genem's post : "divinity was never in question ..The questions arising about the *humanity* (emphasis mine) of Christ were settled in the 3rd and 4th Councils, and these addressed how the human and divine natures exist in relation to each other, not the fact of their relation."
And again, you don't address the issue; the issue is that theere was no standardised Christianty from day one. There were multiple groups each with their own 'book' which they claimed is the correct relevation. Some didn't include the old testament, others only included a few letters from Paul. If you actually took the time and did some research you would know I was raised a Catholic.
1. Gnosticism is not convertible with "Christianity." Gnostics tended to use the same books and their own ancillary books. Try again.
2. I assume you are referring to Marcion. Marcion was accounted a heretic early on, and he willfully edited his own canon of Scripture to exclude the OT. This was done by many Gnostics who believed the Demiurge was the OT God.
3. So, you've only demonstrated that people from another religion did not accept the canon of the Jews.
4. Nobody denies there was discussion about the content of the NT canon. However, the Gospels were always accepted. Where is your argument they were not? If you would bother yourself to read through the discussions about Paul, you'd know the vast majority of the works attributed to him was accepted by the churches. You'd also know that the only substantive discussion was relative to Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation. There was discussion from time to time with respect to others, but that's it.
Oh, and what are we to say of Ulthman's treatment of the Koran? According to historians, there were different copies of Muhammand's writings that were gathered and burned, so it isn't as if your own criticisms can't be leveled against Islam and that with even greater force. The Koran was standardized by a good old fashioned book burning.
Even YOU conceded that the divity of Christ had to be settled after he had left - again, you say one thing, and yet, history says another.
Well systematic theology doesn't drop down in the form of a detailed understanding from the bosom of God in heaven does it? Why should the infant church be expected to have an understanding of these and other issues compared to, let's say, the Westminster Divines in the 17th century. That said, the argument for the doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent on the decision of any council of churches. You were reared Roman Catholic (but you are, according to your own profile on your blog a homosexual Muslim, remember) but you apparently haven't a clue about the Protestant rule of faith. Councils are useful, but not determinative of anything for us. Try familiarizing yourself with who writes on this blog for a change.
What I said was that there was never a controversy about Jesus divinity. Here's what I wrote:
No, because his divinity was never in question, even if we concede that Gnosticism and Christianity are in the same family.
Try to follow what I wrote. I simply framed the argument on the terms you provided. The controversies about the nature of Jesus related not to his divinity but to his humanity. Even the Docetics never denied his divinity. They denied his humanity, and they did so not on the basis of the Gospels, but through their ancillary texts,none of which dated from the first century. Try again.
Nobody ever denied Jesus was divine. What they discussed was the nature of that divinity, that is, in what way does it subsist. not the fact of that divinity. You never said anything about that; rather you provided the term "divinity."
There was controversy over the fact of his humanity - denied by Docetics for example, but Docetism is not a Christian religion. It was a Gnostic religion that used Christian terms. It also used many other terms from many other sources. Other controversies over Jesus' humanity came in the time of the 3rd and 4th Councils, but these arose not from denials of the fact of His humanity but from questions over the way the divine and human nature related to each other in Christ. These questions included: Did Christ have a human soul, or was the divine nature taking the place of that soul? Another was, are the two natures completely separate,linked together, or mixed into something new? Another was, how do the attributes of one nature affect the other? - But these are hardly denials of Jesus divinity, which if you'll recall, is the way you framed the question.
The Modalists never denied Jesus' divinity. They were confused over whether the 3 Persons were modes of God's existence or separate subsistences.
Arianism never denied Jesus was divine. They denied that Jesus was fully God in the same way the Father and Spirit are God; they made Jesus a subordinate god; they were also in the minority @ Nicea, and they were also a minority among Christians as a whole. They only came to power by way of the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia over Constantine, but that was after, not prior to Nicea, and they only remained in power for a few years. Athanasius was deposed more than once by the Emperors of his day. So, if you want to say that politics is what made Trinitarianism creedal and settled the canon of Scripture, I'm afraid, you'll have to deal with something called the historical record.
The issue is that there were multiple manuscripts and books floating around *SOMEONE/SOME PEOPLE HAD TO DECIDE WHAT WENT INTO THE BOOK* -
The Council of Nicea made no decisions about the content of the NT canon. That's a common error made by atheists and readers of The DaVinci Code, so it's ironic you're employing it. Try again. Apparently you are either ignorant of church history or unaware of text critical science or both, or maybe you're just an avid fan of The DaVinci Code.
No ecumenical church council had a vote as to which books were in and which were out, nor did they make a decision as to which books were inspired. The church counsels through history merely affirmed the particular books to be inspired by God.
You really should make an effort to look up some basic information about the NT canon, like information concerning the Muratorian Fragment before making such obviously ahistorical claims.The Canons of Nicea are actually available online. I realize this may be asking too much, but here's a thought: read them. Google is your friend.
When Athanasius wrote in A.D. 367 he cited the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as being the only true books. In A.D. 363 the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) recognized the twenty-seven books, and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) affirmed that only those canonical books were to be read in the churches. None of these cites Nicea as the determiner of the canon. The Eastern Church has sought to determine its canon by way of the 6th and 7th councils (depending who is defending it). The Roman Church has sought to determine their canon by way of the Council of Trent. No Protestant communion has ever appealed to any council as the determiner of a canon of Scripture.
The council didn't write a damn thing, they decided which scriptures were 'genuine' inspirations of god and through the 'guidance of the holy spirit' they decided which ones should go into the new testament
This is, of course, a boatload of assertions, not an argument. Typing in BOLD only proves you can yell on the internet. I'm not impressed.
(the same 'holy spirit' which decides the pope - I put that in quotations for a reason, I'm sure you've got the brain power to work out the relationship between politics and religion, if not, then God help you).
This is, of course, just shorthand that you seem to think will alleviate your need to make an argument and an assertion. You'll need to argue your point, not assert it. I'm going to assume you've never tried to do that with respect to these issues. That's why I have recommended a book for you to read (JND Kelly's book), and below another. I am actually trying to help you expand your mind. You might actually learn a thing or two.
I never raised Gnosticism, and yet you saw fit to raise it (for what reason - I don't know), you then go off on a tangent.
I raised the issue, because you, in your historical ignorance implicitly raised it in discussing these issues by discussing what different sects believed. I tell you what, before coming back here with such poor argumentation, why don't you crack a book on church history. The 2 Volume work by Justo Gonzales is a standard work that I should think you can easily grasp. I suspect your little rant is just a diversionary tactic to cover up your ineptitude.
Respected David here is something you would like to read. This is exclusively dedicated to your paper:
http://donotsaytrinity.blog.co.in/2008/10/18/deuteronomy-dissection/
sincerely,
Question Mark,
http://donotsaytrinity.blog.co.in
This article is wrong and surely he is person of hell fire.
Please look at the 2nd proof:
"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken."
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)
WHY HE WOULD HIMSELF SAY THAT I AM TELLING LIE???????????
So this is additional things that has been added by the non-believers to mislead Muslims....
IF AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE COME IN FRONT OF HIM I WILL DEFINITELY KILL HIM.
This a totally wrong article that misleading several believers. The author of this article is a person of hell fire.
Simple proof that clears that this is false and evil article. Please look carefully the second proof-
"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken."
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)
Think yourself if someone is telling lie then he should conceal the thing not to expose.
So this has been proved that above thing has been added to misguide the believers of Prophet Muhammad.
Post a Comment