Thursday, October 23, 2014

Paul Beliar Williams Does It Again

Paul Beliar Williams is an apostate from Christianity that needs no introduction to the readers of this blog. PW's frequent boast that he was a Christian, and that he knows Christianity inside and out, is something we have tried and found wanting on many occasions. Actually, since we have corrected his blatant errors many times, it is obvious that he does know Christianity but does not have the ounce of integrity it takes to represent Christian beliefs accurately.

If you think this language is too strong, behold the latest evidence that PW has no problem lying about our beliefs, which is yet more proof that the same deceiving spirit that possessed Muhammad, who also had no problem lying about Christian beliefs, is also at work in PW:


The concept of telling the truth about the Trinity is utterly alien to PW's thinking and character. The idea that God is "three co-equal persons each one a separate god" is as utterly alien to Christianity as telling the truth is to PW. PW is living proof that Muslims practice taqiyya, and that the wicked go astray from the womb speaking lies.

In light of the above, I have several questions for PW:

1) If Christianity is false, why do you so often misrepresent it in order to argue against it?

2) If Allah is the true God, the Qur'an is his true word, and Muhammad is a true prophet, why do you behave as if you believe lies are needed in order to prop them up?

3) When you said before that Allah has burdened his followers with rules that are too hard to follow, did you mean something other than the allowance for lying, something that seems to come very easy to you?

4) Are you going to repent of being a liar or just make excuses and call me a big meanie for calling a spade a spade?

28 comments:

The SugaRat said...

I don't get it. So aren't you agreeing with that post, in that the trinity is not three separate Gods?

King Arthur said...

anthony....great post.
.
you know when i first realized that the arab god called 'the god' was sending lying recitals about christian beliefs, i thought that for sure this is the obvious proof that islam is false. We know that the true YHWH "...is not a man that he should lie..." and here we find 'al lah' caught in lies saying the christians make isa (islamic fake jesus) a partner or a second god or that the jews make ezera a partner or a second god.........wow the arab god is either not all knowing or obviously a liar because the true God YHWH can and did enter into His creation through the virgin birth being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit to be in the form of a man named Yeshua transliterated into english as Jesus.
Personally i would love it if you or sam or david made a video on this topic because knowing the character and nature of God is the first principle in true religion and islam fails miserable and the proof of al lah lying is in their own qur'an.
1) christians making isa a partner
2) christians in future making isa and marium two others gods besides al lah
3) "three" is isa, marium and al lah in islamic paridigm
4)failed understanding of 'persons'
5) failed understanding of incarnation
6) jews making ezera a partner lie
.
and alot more points could be made......
.
please make video on this topic, i dont see video on this anywhere

David Wood said...

Paul is correct that the idea that God is three separate gods is utterly alien to the religion of Jesus and to Judaism. It's also utterly alien to Christianity, which is why the Qur'an can't be the word of God. Since the Qur'an attempts to refute Christianity by claiming that we believe in three separate gods, it's clear that the author of the Qur'an didn't know basic Christian doctrine.

It's kind of funny that Paul Williams (who claims to get his material from scholarly sources) is getting his information about WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE from the Qur'an, which gets our beliefs wrong. Perhaps Paul is becoming a more orthodox Muslim.

King Arthur said...

sugarat...........First you need to understand that the qur'an mistakenly accuses christianity of teaching that the phrase 'son of God' in reference to Jesus means 'a second God'. Further muslims are taught that we believe Jesus himself is a second God besides 'allah'; the qur'an even says that one day in future christians will take jesus and his mother as 'other Gods besides allah'..This is the real problem...because not 1 christian believes Jesus is a 'second God'...not 1 christian in the whole of history..Christians believe in 1 God in essence, yet 3 in persons that exist eternally. The "persons" part is confusing to muslims because its not in their islamic paridigm ; but it means "of personality". The 1 God is multi-personal ...a Father=love, a Son=truth and a Holy Spirit=teacher/comforter and these 3 persons (of personality) exist in the One true God ETERNALLY OUTSIDE OF TIME SPACE AND MATTER.....and here's the point; that the Son of God (divine truth) entered into His creation as a man named in hebrew as, "Yahushua" translitered from hebrew to greek to latin and finally to English as JESUS. (side note: the arabic "Isa" is a transliteration of Essua (Jacob's brother) which was a mistake thinking it was Jesus' name...nonetheless "Isa" in qur'an refers to "Jesus" of the bible..OK NOW...Christianity teaches that one of Gods persons; the truth...or the Son of God entered into His own creation by the virgin birth and EMPTIED HIS DIVINITY soas to become a man....100% human but sent by His Father....so Jesus was God in human form emptied of His divinity totally reliant on His Father in heaven. .No one knows the hour---because Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity; He Himself was limited...distinction of the Father--because of Jesus' humiliated status as in the form of a human.Hope this helps....but to answer you; no christian believes in three gods but that is what qur'an says we do---but that is a lie from al lah proving al lah fake

Anthony Rogers said...

The SugaRat,

I am objecting to PW claiming that Trinitarianism is belief in three separate gods, which is what he is referring to in context.

As David pointed out, the closer PW gets to orthodox Islam the further he gets from accurately representing our theology. His god may have been just plane ignorant about what we believe, but PW at this point knows the truth and doesn't even care to speak accurately.

King Arthur said...

ok you didnt post my last post to sugarat...was i off topic?...anyway you dont need to post this either but just for the record i am not a oneness person but i do believe God is tri-personal=trinity........and i do admit you guys (anthony sam and david) are giants compared to me...be encouraged brothers; you are the very few apologetic evangelist against islamic heresys and for our great God and Saviour Jesus the Christ

Paul Williams said...

I have refuted Rogers misunderstandings on my blog:


http://bloggingtheology.org/2014/10/23/8781/

King Arthur said...

oops...now i feel silly...you did post my comments but i guess there was time lapse of internet...............sorry guys please forgive me (blush)

Anthony Rogers said...

PW, you need to work on your timing. I am trying to watch a movie right now. I will refute your lies in a few hours.

Radical Moderate said...

Anthony Rogers and Paul Williams. You know what would be great, is for you two to debate this topic.

David Ford said...

[King Arthur]"the arabic 'Isa' is a transliteration of Essua (Jacob's brother) which was a mistake thinking it was Jesus' name"

I disagree.

Luxenberg, Christoph. 2007. _The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran_ (Berlin: Verlag Hans Schiler), 349pp.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Syro-Aramaic-Reading-Koran-Contribution/dp/3899300882/
On 43, in the section "On the Spelling of… [snip Arabic letters] (_Isa_)":
Finally, one should not fail to mention the fact that the name… [snip Aramaic letters]/ _Isa_, presumably created from… [snip Aramaic letters]/ _Isay_ by monophthongizing the final diphthong, is widespread among Eastern Syrians today. The possibility can thus not be excluded that the Koran considered this name, common among the Aramean Christians of its day, to be a variant form more suitable to the Arabic pronunciation than the actual name… [snip Aramaic letters]/ _Iso_ (_Jesus_)....

David Ford said...

[David Wood]"the Qur'an attempts to refute Christianity by claiming that we believe in three separate gods"

Not so:

Parrinder, Geoffrey. 1965. _Jesus in the Qur'an_ (NY: Oxford University Press), 187pp.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Quran-Geoffrey-Parrinder/dp/1851689990/
On 133, the opening paragraph of the "Trinity" chapter:
IT has often been thought that the Qur'an denies the Christian teaching of the Trinity, and commentators have taken its words to be a rejection of orthodox Christian doctrine. However, it seems more likely that it is heretical doctrines that are denied in the Qur'an, and orthodox Christians should agree with most of its statements. An examination of the different passages will show this.

Warraq, Ibn. 2014. _Christmas in the Koran: Luxenberg, Syriac, and the Near Eastern and Judeo-Christian Background of Islam_

Praise for _Christmas in the Koran_:
http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Koran-Luxenberg-Judeo-Christian-Background/dp/161614937X/
"Ibn Warraq presents, translates, and synthesizes a massive number of hard-to-get articles on the Aramaic-Syriac substratum of the Koran. He proves that he is not only a master of past scholarship, but of the present, interacting with Luxenberg’s controversial work on the Syriac Christian (Aramaic) meanings of obscure Koranic words and phrases. Additionally he gives us a mountain of evidence that traditional Muslim understandings (all too often parroted by apologists for Islam) of the Arabic Koranic text are fatally flawed and even in places ludicrous, raising questions about its textual transmission as well as the issue of interpretation. It is rare today to find a scholar with Warraq’s courage to confront these issues. . . . His work could not be more timely."
—David Cook, Department of Religious Studies, Rice University

David Ford said...

Anthony Rogers, how would you rephrase the 23 Oct 2014 P.W. remark of 12:32pm to make it a statement you could agree with?

gabriella oak said...

@ Anthony Rogers

If you're watching Forrest Gump, the transition to refuting Paul Williams will be almost seamless.

Nojmul Huda said...

@ Osama Abdallah,
Open up your iconic Caba to public to proof that there are no idols inside caba. History says that there are 360 idols inside Caba since Muhammad conquered Mecca from his tribe Koresh. Muslims not knowing the truth blindly worship idols while pray facing Caba. Why do Muslims fear to open the door of Caba, unless they have fear lest actual truth comes out of the bottle like Arabian gene in the bottle? True Almighty God has no secrecy to hide.

In your last posting you wanted to see to believe the dead body of the Canadian Muslims terrorist, who killed the army at the War Memorial. You wanted to see bullets hole at the Parliament to believe firing inside parliament, why do you not want to see inside Caba to believe that are no idols inside Caba as history says?

King Arthur said...

david ford...thanks for your comment, but i would have to disagree with your disagreement. If my memory serves me correctly i got this information from ChristianPrince who i trust is extreme in his dissection of islamic snot theology...so there...lol....now i'll have to search it out finding my source;....it could take some time

SG said...

@ David Ford

Nothing that you quoted there refutes what David Wood said, at all. The basic argument in both quotations is that the Qur'an is misunderstood by Muslims. Does Parrinder even go into lengths explaining how the Qur'an supposedly (likely in his words) attacks heretical documents? Despite his impressive credentials (and the fact that he was a minister), it seems far-fetched. Especially when you consider the infancy narratives, and the denial of crucifixion.

Nojmul Huda said...

Nobody has seen one and only God, except Jesus Christ, Who is from the God, begotten not created like us. We Christian understand God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, Triune God thru accounts of Jesus Christ in Gospel. Whoever believes Jesus Christ must believe what he said in the Gospel. There are no other authentic sources about true God except Jesus Christ.

Muhammad, a simple businessman acknowledged Jesus Christ's miracles and other signs, nobody had ever performed before but he denied Jesus’ deity to establish his own authority as unchallenged leader of the Arab, mixing with religion. So that people believe Muhammad’s authority without challenge by the name of his god Allah.

Islam is religion for politics, power and money as we see in all Muslims countries in Middle East as well as other developing countries, like Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.

OsakaceniNindza said...

Professor Benjamin Sommer: “When the New testament talks about Jesus as being some sort of small scale human manifestation of God, that really sounds to Jews so utterly pagan, but what I’m suggesting is perhaps the radical idea for us Jews--that in fact, it’s not so pagan…We Jews have always tended to sort of make fun of the Trinity…[that Christians] aren’t real monotheists like we Jews are or like the Muslims are, but I think what we have been seeing from what I’ve been saying for the past couple of days [is] the idea of the Trinity…[is] actually an old ancient Near Eastern idea…that can also function in a monotheistic context, as it does I think in the J and the E texts and some of the other texts we were looking at. In fact, to say that three is one—hey! The Kabbalah is going to go even further than that! They say ten is one. The Zohar [and] Sefer Ha-Bahir, they say ten is one. Actually when you get to Lorena Kabbalah there’s the idea that within each of the ten sefirot has ten sefirot within it so that we’ve got a hundred…We [Jews] are taking this [divine fluidity] reasoning much, much farther than the Christians did. One of the more radical conclusions that I came to, much to my own surprise when I was writing this book--and this is not at all what I had intended to do because in various ways that we could discuss if you’re interested--I’m actually rather uncomfortable with my own conclusion here, but as a scholar I gotta to call em as I see em—one of the conclusions that I came to…is that we Jews have no theological objection to the doctrine to the Trinity…The Trinity is an old Ancient Near Eastern idea that shows up in the Tanakh and in a different way shows up in Jewish mysticism as well”



Rabbi Daniel Boyarin: While by now almost everyone, Christian and non-Christian, is happy enough to refer to Jesus, the human, as a Jew, I want to go a step beyond that. I wish us to see that Christ too–the divine Messiah–is a Jew. Christology, or the early ideas about Christ, is also a Jewish discourse and not–until much later–an anti-Jewish discourse at all. Many Israelites at the time of Jesus were expecting a Messiah who would be divine and come to earth in the form of a human. Thus the basic underlying thoughts from which both the Trinity and the incarnation grew are there in the very world into which Jesus was born and in which he was first written about in the Gospels of Mark and John (1-2)
(Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels; The Story of the Jewish Christ; 2012, p. 1, 5-6)

Mark Bennett (Dk) said...

PW Said:

" Furthermore, I stand by my claim that ‘God is three co-equal persons’ is utterly alien to the religion of Jesus. What was his religion? Scholars call it Second Temple Judaism and it was RIGOROUSLY monotheist and UNITARIAN "

Actually both views were present in second century Judaism, as Philo documented repeatedly. But even more prominent than either of these views was the binitarian view, the idea of a single God existing as two powers and/or hypostatis, which certainly was one fascinating emphasis placed in all four highly Trinitarian gospels.

I have rigorously documented from Jewish Scholars and PW's favorite scholarly critic of Christianity, *Erhman* that Second Temple Judaism was more than merely Unitarian, the only idea foreign to the second temple Jewish religion of Jesus was the 'rigorous Unitarianism' invented by PW, which is not asserted by any known scholar within this field. PW therefore quite grudgingly is incapable of producing scholarship to the contrary. PW then, is the foreign epitome of not having a clue what constitutes Second Temple Judaism.

'Unitarianism' within Judaism has never been static, stable or 'fixed' at any stage of Jewish history (including during the time of the Rambam), even to this day the Chabadniks who are ultra-orthodox Jews, have various members who view the Rebbe as divine.

I am not going to waste my bandwidth providing the links, but along with Anthony, myself and Denis Giron, have had no serious responses from PW despite his inadequate predictable parroting and anachronistic gibberish. He he can 'maintain' his ad-hoc assumption(s) all he likes, no one in scholarship actually gives a hoot, not Neusner, Vermes, Erhman, Boyarin, Segal, Heisar, etc all still have the same opinion despite PW's reluctance to accept what several of his own expert authorities assert.

PW reading Unitarianism into the Shema, with a quotation from the (so called corrupted) Gospel of Mark is not impressive.

Remember PW you are the student, Anthony had to teach you that Mark indeed, contains a very high Christology, so high in fact that your very own standard of divine identification was met: ("I am" criterion) and then established and reported by a host of reputable scholars, to which your response was "forget the Greek and the professional commentary, English translations are my authority".

Is PW's approach suppose to convince a serious student of academia, let alone a member of the Christian faith? I have come to believe he is actually trolling.

Anthony and Denis, may I make one suggestion? Please stop giving PW publicity until he actually begins to process academia and interacts with scholarly works.

David said...

David Ford, if the quran is refuting tri-theism, which sect is it refuting? Can you name this sect please.

David Ford said...

[SG]"Nothing that you quoted there refutes what David Wood said, at all."

I'll try again.

[SG]"The basic argument in both quotations is that the Qur'an is misunderstood by Muslims."

Do you think:
the Qur'an is understood by Muslims?
the Qur'an is misunderstood by Muslims?

Arabic speakers who don't know Aramaic can't properly understand an Aramaic book e.g. the Quran, which is about 70% Aramaic.

Lester, Toby. January 1999. "What Is the Koran?" in _The Atlantic_.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/?single_page=true
GERD-R. Puin…. "The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,'" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on."

What's mainly going on is that the Quran isn't in Arabic, but rather is mostly Aramaic-- about 70% Aramaic, in fact.

Another intriguing quote from that same article:
Gerd-R. Puin's current thinking about the Koran's history…. "My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad," he says. "Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants."

Exhibit A might be Sura 96's injunction to go bow down (undoubtedly in worship) and take communion.

[SG]"Does Parrinder even go into lengths explaining how the Qur'an supposedly (likely in his words) attacks heretical documents?"

Not really-- the "Trinity" chapter is short. Parrinder on 137:
"The Qur'an denies Christian heresies of Adoption, Patripassianism, and Mariolotry. But it affirms the Unity, which is at the basis of trinitarian doctrine."

This might be related, and maybe I'll take a look at it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GonPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=%22muslim+attributes+and+the+christian+trinity%22&source=bl&ots=QBzFVZ1ev2&sig=hhKSiTsZbMQeaOciZ4TDbbzH8N8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=94VKVLCuNoniauPxgdAG&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[SG]"Despite his impressive credentials (and the fact that he was a minister), it seems far-fetched. Especially when you consider the infancy narratives, and the denial of crucifixion."

If you would, please elaborate on your reference to infancy narratives.

The alleged "denial of crucifixion" is a mistranslation/ misinterpretation by people who don't know Aramaic. In actuality, [Sawma on 224]"the Qur'an confirms the death and crucifixion of Jesus."

Sawma, Gabriel. 2006. _The Qur'an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread: The Aramaic Language of the Qur'an_ (USA: Adibooks.com), 436pp.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Quran-Misinterpreted-Mistranslated-Misread/dp/0977860698/

David Ford said...

[David]"if the quran is refuting tri-theism, which sect is it refuting? Can you name this sect please."

I don't know the names of any such sects.
However I do have these fancy terms:

Parrinder on 137:
"The Qur'an denies Christian heresies of Adoption, Patripassianism, and Mariolotry. But it affirms the Unity, which is at the basis of trinitarian doctrine."

Davy Jones said...

Paul Williams...if I were to look up the word stupidity in the dictionary ... your profile picture here would definitely pop up..

It seems your stupidity and islam is a match made in heaven by a retarded angel

Please keep it comin..we need the entertainment

David said...

@David Ford: your hypothesis that the quran is refuting/denying christian heresies would be greatly strengthened if it can be shown that this is what muslims throughout islamic history have understood this quranic passage to mean. Otherwise it may be easier to assume that the quran is treating this as the norm of christian belief. As I'm no expert of the islamic commentary on the passage, I leave it up to those who are to way into this discussion.

SG said...

@ David Ford,

I'm referring to the Gospel of Thomas in regards to the infancy narrative. Not a reliable gospel that's been rejected long ago.

As for the rest, those are all far fetched theories and ones that I disagree with, as do the majority of scholars. We have the hadiths to affirm the current interpretations of the Quran by Muhammad himself to boot. The whole "70% Aramaic" bit is particularly puzzling and overreaching by the author. I'm familiar with Arabic and to some extent neo Aramaic btw.

Sounds a bit like the Jesus myth "scholarship" to me.

David Ford said...

[David]"your hypothesis that the quran is refuting/denying christian heresies would be greatly strengthened if it can be shown that this is what muslims throughout islamic history have understood this quranic passage to mean"

Arabic-only speakers & writers can say they understand an Aramaic text-- written in Arabic script-- to mean X all they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Aramaic text actually means X.

On top of that, early Arabic scribes couldn't even write Arabic properly:

http://www.answering-islam.org/PQ/Summary.htm
We note and trace admissions by both modern and classical Islamic scholars that Muhammad's scribes did not know how to write properly and that the early followers copied their errors; that 'Uthman's scribes made further errors making 'Uthman's texts not identical and that later followers copied these errors.

[David]"Otherwise it may be easier to assume that the quran is treating this as the norm of christian belief."

Making assumptions is easy, and a part of life.
However, assumptions aren't always correct-- and often aren't correct.

[David]"assume that the quran is treating this as the norm of christian belief"

10:94, Arberry translation:
"So, if thou art in doubt regarding what We have sent down to thee, ask those who recite the
Book before thee. The truth has come to thee from thy Lord; so be not of the doubters, nor be
of those who cry lies to God's signs so as to be of the losers."

[David]"As I'm no expert of the islamic commentary on the passage, I leave it up to those who are to way into this discussion."

Tabari I 18 apparently has Muhammed saying 'Correct!' to 3 different people speaking out loud 3 different renditions of a verse. Who knows, maybe there are different commentaries saying conflicting things on the passage we're discussing, and somehow they're all 'Correct!'

David Ford said...

More Questions for Muslims

4:19, Arberry translation
https://archive.org/stream/QuranAJArberry/Quran-A%20J%20Arberry_djvu.txt
Such of your women as commit indecency, call four of you to witness against them; and if
they witness, then detain them in their houses until death takes them or God appoints for
them a way.

Do you think God said that?
What does that "indecency" involve-- lesbianism?

===========================.
24:2:
The fornicatress and the fornicator — scourge each one of them a hundred stripes, and in the
matter of God's religion let no tenderness for them seize you if you believe in God and the
Last Day; and let a party of the believers witness their chastisement.

Do you think God said that?

===========================.
Are you in favor of, or opposed to, the imposition of Sharia Law where you live?

===========================.
4:34:
Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be
rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look
not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.

Given those remarks, do you think it is OK to beat potentially-rebellious women?

===========================.
24:33:
And constrain not your slave-girls to prostitution, if they desire to live in chastity, that you
may seek the chance goods of the present life. Whosoever constrains them, surely God, after
their being constrained, is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

Do you God commanded that female slaves *aren't* to be compelled to engage in prostitution?
Do you think that God said that He *forgives* compelling female slaves to engage in prostitution?

Regarding the "is All-forgiving" about breaking a just-given command, I'm reminded of this:

http://www.answering-islam.org/PQ/Summary.htm
We note admissions that the scholars differ as the whether the Qur'anic texts say 'NO' when they should say 'YES' - and that this varies from text to text.