Thursday, November 26, 2015

How Does Paul's Relationship with the Jerusalem Church Present a Problem for Islam?

In a previous article, I offered a simple reason why the Qur'an cannot possibly be the word of God, since the proposition that the Qur'an is the word of God entails a necessary contradiction. Here, I am going to present an equally compelling reason to reject the Qur'an as the word of God.

As I alluded to in my previous post, the Qur'an contends that the disciples of Jesus were Muslims. According to Surah 3:52,

“…when Isa [Jesus] sensed disbelief in them, he said: “Who are my helpers in the way of Allah?” The disciples said: “We are helpers of Allah. We believe in Allah; so be our witness that we are Muslims.”“

So according to the Qur’an, there is no question that the apostles were Muslims, under Jesus. But what if we could establish that the teaching of the apostles differed starkly from the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur'an? Here’s an argument to ponder:

Premise 1: If the original disciples of Jesus rejected core Islamic teachings, Islam is false.
Premise 2: The original disciples of Jesus rejected core Islamic teachings.
Conclusion: Therefore, Islam is false.


In order for a Muslim to escape the conclusion, he or she has to reject one of these two premises. What possible escape routes might be available? One escape route might be to say that the disciples of Jesus were fooled or somehow mistaken – or perhaps they corrupted the true message of Jesus sometime after this. Or maybe even the 12 disciples of Jesus are not even who is in mind here. This escape route, however, is blocked by Surah 61:14,

“O you who believe, be supporters of (the religion of) Allah, just as Isa, son of Maryam, said to the Disciples, “Who are my supporters towards Allah?” The Disciples said, “We are the supporters of (the religion of) Allah.” So a group from the children of Isra’il believed, and another group disbelieved. Then we supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became victors.”

Thus, such speculation runs into the following problem: Jesus's apostles were victors who rose to dominance because of Allah's support for them, indicating their message was approved by Allah. This becomes clear also when we read Surah 3:55:

“When Allah said: “O ‘Isa, I am to take you in full and to raise you towards Myself, and to cleanse you of those who disbelieve, and to place those who follow you above those who disbelieve up to the Day of Resurrection.”

In syllogistic form, the argument can be summarised as follows:

Premise 1: There were victors rising to dominance who Allah supported (Surah 3:55; Surah 61:14).
Premise 2: The victors were either Jesus's apostles or not Jesus's apostles.
Premise 3: If they were not Jesus's apostles, then we would see records of these non-apostle victors.
Premise 4: We do not see such records.
Premise 5: Therefore, it is false that the victors were non-apostles.
Conclusion: Therefore, the victors were Jesus's apostles.

So, when we read Surah 3:52, we can be sure that it is referring to the disciples. Allah blessed these persons. It was the apostles who Allah brought to dominance and vindicated. 

But now a Muslim might well ask, “How do you know the apostles rejected core Islamic teachings?”
It is to this question that I now turn my attention.

Consider Paul the apostle.

Now, I understand that the apostle Paul was not one of the original disciples of Jesus, but converted to Christianity following a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. But I am going to argue that Paul was approved by the original disciples of Jesus. This strongly suggests that his view about the nature of God and identity and mission of Christ matched that of the disciples. In any case, even in the absence of the evidence I am about to present, if we take Surah 3:55 and Surah 61:14 seriously, then Paul’s teaching must have been consistent with the disciples, because the Christianity that prevailed is what Muslim polemicists would consider to be Pauline Christianity – and the Qur’an tells us that the true followers of Jesus were the ones who achieved dominance and became the victors.

Am I completely off-the-wall with this contention? No; In fact, I am in good company. Consider the following quotations from respected Quranic commentators:

Renowned thirteenth-century commentator Al-Qurtubi, says of Surah 61:14:

"It was said that this verse was revealed about the apostles of Jesus, may peace and blessing be upon him. Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter and Paul who went to Rome; Andrew and Matthew who went to the land of the cannibals; Thomas who went to Babel in the eastern lands; Philip who went to Africa; John went to Dac-sos which is the tribe to whom the sleepers of the cave belonged; Jacob went to Jerusalem; Bartholomew went to the lands of Arabia, specifically Al-Hijaz; Simon who went to the Barbarians; Judas and Barthas who went to Alexandria and its surrounding regions.

Allah supported them (the apostles) with evidence so that they prevailed (thahirin) meaning they became the party with the upper hand. Just as it is said, "An object appeared on the wall" meaning it is clearly visible (alu-wat) on the wall. Allah, who is glorified and exalted, knows the truth better and to Him is the return and retreat."

Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (English translation, page 653), the earliest extant biography of Muhammad, says the following:

Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, both disciples and those who came after them, in the land were: Peter the disciple and Paul with him, (Paul belonged to the followers and was not a disciple) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage and Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to the land of Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas.

Or consider Al Tabari’s History (Volume IV, p. 123):

"Among the apostles, and the followers who came after them were the Apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle; they went to Rome. Andrew and Matthew were sent to the country whose people are man-eaters, a land of blacks, we think; Thomas was sent to Babylonia in the east, Philip to Qayrawan (and) Carthage, that is, North Africa. John went to Ephesus, the city of the youths of the cave, and James to Jerusalem, that is, Aelia. Bartholomew was sent to Arabia, namely, the Hijaz; Simeon to the land of the Berbers in Africa. Judas was not then an apostle, so his place was taken by Ariobus. He filled in for Judas Iscariot after the latter had perpetrated his deed."

Thus, Al-Qurturbi, Al Tabari, and Ibn Ishaq all are led to praise the apostle Paul as a direct consequence of these verses.

There are several independent historiographical reasons for thinking that Paul’s teaching was approved by the original disciples of Jesus. Among them are the following:

Reason 1: Individuals in the early church, who are likely to be associated with the apostles (Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius) speak approvingly of his letters.

Reason 2: Never do the early church show knowledge of a fundamental dissension between Paul and Peter on matters pertinent to Christology and the nature of God, even though they often mention him alongside the apostle Peter.

Reason 3: Paul tells us in Galatians 2 that he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabus to confirm that the gospel he was preaching to the gentiles was the same as theirs. It is unlikely that he made this story up in order to support his own apostolic authority – because in the same chapter he also mentions the dispute that happened between Paul and Peter regarding circumcision when Peter came to Antioch.

Reason 4: Paul makes a disinterested comment about the Apostle James in Galatians 1:18-19:

“18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.”

Notice the disinterested off the cuff remark from Paul about James. If Paul was a false Apostle inventing stories we would not expect him to just mention James in passing without making a point. The fact that Paul merely mentions James in this off the cuff way persuades historians that Paul was recalling real events about his association with the early church and Apostles.

Reason 5: Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:9-11,

“9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”

Paul thus appears to endorse the other apostles and even goes so far as to say that he considers himself less than the least of them. Paul seems to assume that the Corinthian Christians also believed his message to be consistent with the other apostles. This strongly suggests that Paul and the other apostles were generally in agreement on the core matters of the faith.

Paul's theology was radically at odds with core Islamic teaching, since Paul affirmed not only the deity of Christ, but also the crucifixion and resurrection (all of which are expressly rejected by Islam).

For the purposes of argument, I will only appeal to the non-disputed works of Paul, works that all Christian and non-Christian historians unanimously grant were written by him. 

In Philippians 2:5-11, Paul quotes what is likely an early Christian hymn:

“5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The crucifixion of Jesus is already starkly at odds with Islamic theology (see Surah 4:157-158). Furthermore, there are at least three reasons why this text teaches the deity of Christ:

Reason 1: It says that Christ was “in the form of God” and then “took the form of a servant” – he is thus putting the two in the same category, since he uses the greek word morphé (meaning "form") in both clauses.
Reason 2: The context of the passage instructs us to emulate the humility of Christ. But it is no act of humility on the part of a creature to not seek to be God.
Reason 3: Verses 10 and 11 link with Isaiah 45:23: “To me [i.e. Yahweh] every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.”

To take one further example, Paul appears to expand upon the shema (from Deuteronomy 6:4) in 1 Corinthians 8:6, identifying Jesus Christ as Lord of the shema:

“Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

This suggests, by extension, that the disciples of Jesus likewise affirmed the deity of Christ. It also seems unlikely that they would have reached such a radical conclusion had Jesus not himself identified Himself in this way, especially given (1) the Jewish Messianic expectations; (2) The Jewish concept of God; and (3) the connotations of crucifixion to a Jew.

To conclude, there is no reason to think that Jesus' disciples were Muslims as the Qur'an contends and every reason to think otherwise. This presents yet another formidable challenge to the Islamic religion and gives even more rational warrant for its rejection.

72 comments:

Osama Abdallah said...

The problem with this approach is that early Christian writings were burned down by the wholesale by 7 Roman emperors:

Nero (54-68)
Domitian (81-96)
Marcus Aurelius (161-180)
Septimius Severus (193-211; up to a point)
Maximinius I Thrax (235-8; up to a point)
Trajanus Decius (249-251)
Valerian (253-260)

EARLY BELIEVERS WERE CALLED MUSLIMS. Even Sam Shamoun seems to believe in this in his heart while verbally denying it. Read this quote from him:

"In other words, even though it may correct that the term Mushlam later meant one who submits or referred to a Muslim, this doesn’t tell us whether it carried this meaning during the time of Christ, especially if we take into consideration that Mushlam is the translation of katertismenos, a word which does not include submission as one of its definitions."

SOURCE: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Ataie/jesus_muslim.htm

Notice here Sam Shamoun's "refutation" to this is his use of the Greek "source". But Jesus and the people of Palestine didn't speak Greek!! In fact, the disciples had to learn Greek through TOUNGUES OF FIRE that came down upon them. Otherwise, Greek was a foreign language there to most of the people.

I have tried to cover this in my debate notes during my last four debates. I have covered the burning of the overwhelming majority of the Believers' writings from the seven Roman emperors, and I thoroughly demonstrated how the Arabian Prophet, which the New Covenant, will come according to the canonized Bible itself. Please visit:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sons_of_god_in_bible_and_quran_debate.htm

This article is messy, because it is only my brief debate notes. The more organized section is here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm

NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

1-
The canonized New Testament text of today was written 50 to 300 years after Jesus. It is not original, and it is only little remnant from the original.

2- The early believers were busy fighting the uphill battle of proving that Jesus was the Messiah born from a Virgin, and not a bastard born from a harlot. Muhammad was probably the last on the list.

GOD Almighty Willing, me and Dr. David Wood will have a debate on the NT Text and Islam's view of it soon. The title of the debate is a bit lengthy, but it includes this topic and more.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Jonathan Mclatchie said...

Osama: You are aware that there is no or little dispute about the text for the vast, vast majority of the New Testament, right? Besides the multiple independent streams of textual transmission, a little under half of the New Testament text can be constructed from quotations by the early church fathers. All that is necessary to support my case here is the Pauline literature, and I have limited myself to the nondisputed Pauline works for the sake of argument (i.e. works that are universally attributed to Paul). Paul's approval of and from the Jerusalem church is a problem for the Muslim position, since the Qur'an tells us that Jesus' own disciples were Muslims.

Even if the text of the New Testament has been substantially corrupted (which would be a radical fringe position that is difficult to support from the data), that presents yet another problem for Islam, as I demonstrate here: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2015/11/a-simple-reason-why-quran-cannot-be.html

Happy to do a debate on either of these topics if you don't agree.

Jonathan

Richard said...

@Osama

Looking at this from a disinterested point of view it is quite clear what has happened here.

Mohammed had not read the Bible and neither had most of the people he was trying to recruit. Furthermore most of them did not have much access to the Bible - and Mohammed knew that.

Therefore he was confident that he could say pretty much what he liked without fear of contradiction provided it was plausible. Therfore he said whatever he thought would have the best impact at the time. He wasn't bothered about whether it would look stupid later because he wasn't trying to found a religion - he was just trying to promote his own cause. His horizons stretched no further than his own lifetime.

The notion that the actual scriptures of the Christians have been corrupted is in any case a later muslim invention designed to cover a rather gaping hole in their story.

Andrew said...

Osama is a comedian. "Jesus and the people of palestine (sic) didn't speak greek". Greek was one of the official languages of the empire. Of course Jesus and the disciples spoke greek. And as for "palestine" it didn't exist in Jesus' day. Israel would not be renamed "palestine" until 135AD.

David said...

I'm not sure what Osama is on about when he says this:

1- The canonized New Testament text of today was written 50 to 300 years after Jesus. It is not original, and it is only little remnant from the original.

I have a few things one might want to think about:

a) How does Osama know that the NT we have today is only a remnant of the original if we don't have the original on hand to compare it to?

b) What parts of the NT were written 300 yrs after Jesus?

c) Why does Osama use god hating scholar's works to derive a starting number at 50 yrs for the start of the writing of the NT? Even non-believing scholars would say Paul's writings are from within 30 yrs of Jesus' death.

d) Would a muslim like Osama accept what god hating unbelieving scholars would say concerning the transmission of the quran? (ie we don't have the original spoken by mohammed, Uthman rewrote the quran and destroyed the originals - hardly disputed facts by the way. Or that the quran is a reworked lectionary of the Syriac church.)

Osama Abdallah said...

Andrew,

Who is the real comedian here? Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew to his people, and his sayings were documented in Greek, not Aramaic nor Hebrew.

And you call me a comedian? And it seems that you have a difficult time reading here. I know that Palestine was controlled and ruled by the Romans, who spoke both Greek and Latin. But this doesn't mean that the people there spoke those languages. I am a Palestinian, and my family roots go back to countless centuries. WE DO NOT SPEAK GREEK THERE! Get that into your head. Even the Palestinian Christians don't speak Greek, nor Latin, nor Italian (a developed language from Latin).

Palestine's first language is Arabic, and had always been Arabic. The Jews' first language is Hebrew. Many of them speak Arabic and many Arabs there speak Hebrew. BUT NEITHER IS FLUENT IN GREEK! Extreme few speak Greek. But the average people there only speak Arabic and Hebrew, from the Palestinians and Israeli sides.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Osama Abdallah said...

"And as for "palestine" it didn't exist in Jesus' day. Israel would not be renamed "palestine" until 135AD."

Even in the Bible, and before the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt to Palestine, Palestine had always been called the LAND OF THE PHILISTINES.

Osama Abdallah

Osama Abdallah said...

Another point worth mentioning is Jesus most definitely spoke Arabic. I know that in your biased Scriptures that were doctored by men, this is not stated, but the very fact that the people of Palestine spoke only Arabic clearly proves that there are intentionally hidden things about the early Christian Believers' history that were suppressed.

What is this Greek language and these man-made Greek gospels and books that were canonized? How come the Arabic original writings weren't there. Didn't JEsus speak with Samaritans (Gentiles)? WHO DO YOU THINK WERE THEY? They were Palestinians! And Palestine was opened by Caliph Omar 600 years after Jesus when Islam came and the Romans were defeated by the Muslims and Palestine was liberated. **** GUESS WHAT? THEY WERE 100% ARABIC SPEAKERS THERE.

You couldn't possibly sit here and tell me that the nation of Palestine's first language was eliminated and was replaced by Arabic before Islam came.

So perhaps after all, original Arabic Scriptures did indeed exist with the Jews in Arabia. And perhaps they spoke clearly about Prophet Muhammad. And perhaps they were all burned down after the Muslims crushed the JEws in Arabia after their betrayal of the Muslims.

I just find the absence of Arabic manuscripts from the early Christian writings to be quite ridiculous odd! It's all about Greek. But Greek was a foreign language. I have no problem accepting Greek, but the evidence is overwhelming against it. It is simply a foreign language, and Jesus didn't spoke it. Jesus definitely spoke Arabic, but yet, this is intentionally removed from your history.

I find this quite odd. Think about it. You do find MUSLIM TO BE THE BELIEVERS' TITLE IN THE FEW REMNANTS THAT YOU HAVE. Don't you think that there is a whole a lot more to this than what little you have?

Here is what the Glorious Quran Says about Muslims before Islam, and during Prophet Isa (Jesus) days:

[005:111] "And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Apostle: they said, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to God as Muslims'".

So the Glorious Quran confirms that Jesus' followers were called Muslims, and your sources also confirm this.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Jonathan Mclatchie said...

Personally, I suspect that Jesus did speak Greek in addition to Aramaic. There is some indication of this in John 3, where Jesus speaks to a highly educated Pharisee, Nicodemus. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born from above, and Nicodemus interprets it as born again. This pun only works in Greek, and doesn't work in Aramaic. Jesus may well have spoken in Greek on this occasion.

Jonathan

HisBullAssh HamAndAss said...

Whether Jesus has spoken Greek or not in real life , according to Quran Jesus was absolutely speaking Greek language.

And He (Allah) will teach him [‘Isa] the Book and Al-Hikmah and the Tawrat and the INJEEL.” [Al ‘Imran 3:48]

INJEEL is not arabic word, it means nothing in arabic nor hebrew nor aramaic.

INJEEL straightly derives from GREEK WORD εὐαγγέλιον euangélion

So if you're a muslim please stick to the Quran, please !

Gazza Sloane said...

Osama said they learned Greek on the day of Pentecost. Can u prove that from the bible? As far as I know, it simply said they learned languages, yes, but no specific language but by area.

Alternatively, let's ASSUME you are correct and they did learn Greek here. I still see no issue as the gospels were written after the event anyway.
Therefore a question remains then. If they learned such a variety of languages, why write mostly in Greek? Why not Latin or Arabic? These were learned languages at the same time. Is because a majority already spoke or read Greek at the time already?

Osama, I don't think you follow your conclusions fully. I think my own conclusions, even derived from your own, would show there are problems with your objection which should be addressed before holding to such a position.

Osama Abdallah said...

Dear brothers and sisters,

More amazingly, we do find that the NT speaks about Jesus returning as AN ARAB, not an Israelite:

www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm

You also find MANY PASSAGES in the Bible's OT and NT about t new Servant (Prophet/Messenger), who will have the New Covenant with him, that he will come from the Lands of Kedar (Central Arabia today, near Mecca):

www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm

And you do also read about the House of GOD Almighty will be established IN THE DESERT of Kedar and its Path will be called THE PATH OF HOLINESS in Isaiah 35 and 60.

So going back to the MUSLAM (Muslim) title of the Believers point, I find it quite odd that Arabic is not linked with Jesus in your Scriptures, while there should've been a whole lot more of it there.

Happy Thanks Giving to all of you! :)

Your humble brother,
Osama Abdallah

Andrew said...

Osama says " I know that Palestine was controlled and ruled by the Romans,". You conflate Philistia with Palestine. They are two different things. The philistines were red headed seafarers from the Agean who settled in what is todays Gaza. They had disappeared from history by the time the Romans came on the scene. The etymology of "palestine" is latin. When the Romans crushed the second jewish revolt in 135AD they renamed Israel "palestine". It was a calculated insult. As one historian has said, it would have been the equivalent of William the conqueror renaming England lesser France.

The Romans even minted coins "the fall of Judea". Your assertion that in Jesus' day Israel was called "palestine" is risible.

Osama Abdallah said...

@HisBullAssh HamAndAss,

Injil was the name of the Revelations that were given to Isa, peace be upon him. It is an Arabized word for the Aramaic "Awon-Galee-Yon". And Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew according to your sources. And I add that he spoke Arabic as well, and preached heavily in it as well, probably equal if not more than he did with Aramaic and Hebrew, since the Gentiles/Samaritans there were the Palestinians; Arabic speakers.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Herakleios said...

@Osama:
You seem to be very sure and (think to be) educated about many things. Yet, you show a lot of errors.
Just to pick one example. You say the Samaritans were speaking arabic? Are you so sure about that? It is Kind of funny, i just met a Samaritan 2 Weeks ago!!! His own language was a Kind of samaritan hebrew ... we read Parts of the samaritan Pentateuch and it was very interessting to hear the differences between the samaritan and jewish texts. I dont know if he does speak arabic, but the samaritans have and always had their own way of speaking hebrew, NOT arabic.
For the start, take a look at this page: http://www.israelite-samaritans.com/
it might be interesting for you, because the samaritans of today are trying to bring peace to jews and palestinians and seem to get along very well with both of them.
Are you seriously saying, that Jesus spoke ARABIC??? I am fine, to say his first language was Aramaic, but Arabic is the one that is ridiculous. Greek in those times was, what english is for most People today. The language everyone could communicate in. Wouldnt it make sense for God to choose that language then? Especialy from a completely secular Point of view - it is absurd to say, that People in Israel didnt speak greek. It is even very disputable how big the percentage is, of People that had greek as their 1st language. The hellenistic period left a mark in history, that changed the world and left many People speaking greek around all the land that Alexander conquered and his successors then kept ruling. Some works of historians i have read give estimates of above 50% even for Jerusalem, although those numbers in Dispute. No one would argue, that greek wasnt one, if not THE, language for communication around the mediterrennean countries!

What i find very disturbing is your way of speaking of some kind of liberation of the People of what you call palestine. I know, that you, in your worldview, think that they have been muslims all the way along time. In ancient times those People in that Region, that were not jews (samaritans included), were mostly what you would call idolators. There is absolutely no evidence to Support your theory of Islam being pre-existend before Mohammed. Or please show me any historical evidence, that has any credit in modern scholarship! The only Thing you can demonstrate is, that Mohammed borowed a lot from other believes and cults and incorporated those into what is called the Quran.

Osama Abdallah said...

@Herakleios,

Greek wasn't a global language like English is today. It was very limited and very local to Greece and to near lands from the Roman Empire. Europeans are not Greek speakers! And Palestinians too didn't speak Greek. And North Africans didn't speak Greek. And Egyptians didn't speak Greek. On the contrary, The entire Middle East, and North and Central Africa ARE ALL ARABIC SPEAKERS. Arabic is their first language. This is Islam easily spread throughout those lands. It was quite easy to communicate with them.

Also again, when Muslims opened Palestine just a few centuries after Jesus (after the Muslims defeated the Romans), the people of Palestine all spoke Arabic.

As to Samaritans, they were mostly Gentiles. Some say they are a mix between Jews and Gentiles.

As to Jesus speaking Arabic, not only did he speak Arabic, but I firmly believe that during Islam's days, there were actual ARABIC MANUSCRIPTS IN ARABIA that spoke about the coming of the Divine Religion of Islam. The Quran clearly references them!! Muhammad would've easily been proven a liar if they weren't there. And even in today's canonized Bible, we find ample passages that predict the coming of Islam from Arabia as GOD Almighty's New Covenant. Unfortuantly also, the mentioned Roman emperors above did burn a vast number of early Believers' writings.

So once again, there is a lot more to MUSHLAM in the Bible.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Andrew said...

I have always wondered when Jesus and Pontius Pilate met what language they communicated in - Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek?

Nojmul Huda said...

“2- The early believers were busy fighting the uphill battle of proving that Jesus was the Messiah born from a Virgin, and not a bastard born from a harlot. Muhammad was probably the last on the list.”- Hujur Osama

Dear Osama Abdallah,
As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu "the peace be upon you".

I am sure you know Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Hitler. I believe Goebbles learnt lesion from your prophet Muhammad how to confuse people and establish false political manifesto. Muhammad was that shrewd to convince Osama Abdallah and other Muslims of this century and the past that he was born before he was conceived by his father and mother to make believe that all biblical people including Adam and Eve was Muslims. Stupid like Osama Abdullah can believe this cock and bull story of Muhammad, but people of Light (Jesus) won’t believe.

According to Mark 8:27 Jesus asked His disciples “Who do people say I am?” 28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

But notice how Gobbles Muhammad made this verse of the Holy Bible in the demonic Quran According to Surah 3:52, “…when Isa [Jesus] sensed disbelief in them, he said: “Who are my helpers in the way of Allah?” The disciples said: “We are helpers of Allah. We believe in Allah; so be our witness that we are Muslims.”“

Stupid Osama do not believe Jesus though He proved his godliness by healing blind, feeding 5 thousands people by 7 loaves, giving life to dead Lazarus, not by fighting like Muhammad with Arabian tribes. Gobbles Muhammad acknowledged Jesus’ mighty miraculous power to confuse Christians by Surah 3:52 where his Allah said that Isa and his disciples were Muslims. Stupid Osama believe Muhammad, because he said so, not reviewing Muhammad’s spiritual life. Muhammad married older women (Khodeja) because of her wealth and again married 9 years old to seduced child.

Osama, whatever you believe is up to you, but to get eternal life in heaven you have to use your own wisdom to judge good over evil. Muhammad was killed by poison; his Allah could not save him. He could not save you if you follow him. Evils beget evil. Fools die by his foolishness.

HisBullAssh HamAndAss said...

@Osama

{It is an Arabized word for the Aramaic "Awon-Galee-Yon}LOL
do you get that from this "wanna appear smart but silly" website? http://www.v-a.com/bible/mark_chapter_1_aramaic_audio.html

what a joke! first the guy himself is not a scholar though he's sort of insisting wanna be recognized as one.

Second,there's no such a word as Awon-Galee-Yon for Gospel, this guy practically performs textual gymnastic here, and he has shown it as he has stated himself quote[Evangelion comes from the Aramaic word meaning 'He reveals' (Hao-ga-leon.) In Greek it has been transliterated as 'εὐαγγέλιον' and pronounced as 'evangelion (source:http://www.v-a.com/)]

The guy believes Gospel means He reveals (Hao-ga-leon)and of course word 'Hao' means He in English, and since you understand arabic, I think you also agree HAO in arabic is HUWA(هو)which shares the same meaning.

And this guy assumes when Greek people encountered HAO-ga-leon they hearded the word 'HAO' as AWN or EWN and then became evangelion. This is plainly just unscholarly textual gymnastic. Funny thing is even if it had been true, then INJEEL would've been still derived from GREEK WORD Awn/EWN-Gee-Leeon, coz as the guy has pointed out the original word is HAO-ga-Leeon. And more than that since u claims Jesus spoke Arabic and HAO= arabic HUWA then Quran should've been consistence for at least inserting word HUWA within the INJEEL.

This Awon-Gee-Leeon HOAX was originally started as an Anti-Semitic accusation toward Judaism which presuming the word Awon-gillayon (Hebr.a worthless book margin) in Book of Tosephta reefers to Gospel in condescending manner, but apparently this accusation is baseless.

EW-NGEELION is originally Greek and derives from none, EW means GOOD and N'GEELION means Message(fyi angel is from the word n'gelllous which means messenger)

Need no hard textual Gymnastic to see the derivation of INJEEL from IWNJEELION

{ And I add that he spoke Arabic as well} Even muslim scholars will laugh at you for this! Arabic language had not even borne yet! not until 400-500yrs later!

Thank u for your comedic act btw, it's quite a laugh l.o.l

Herakleios said...

@Osama:
Thanks for your Reply. Sadly you didnt give me any sources for your Claims.
I study history and everything i have ever read about this Topic - languades around the mediterrenean - stands oppisite to what you are saying.

Could you please give sources to your claims? You do realise, that the Things you are saying are very much against anything the majority (if not all) of the scholars today are saying. So any sources from your side would be very helpful.

But first things first:
You do realise, that i spoke to a Samaritan myself? Those People still live today. You Claim, that they spoke arabic. Yet their writings are not in arabic, but in a Special samaritan-hebrew. They still posess many ancient writings and still speak their own language today. The man i spoke with can trace his Family back many thousands of years and they never left, what they call, the holy land. So, could you please give me any historical sources, that would Support your Claim, that the samaritan People spoke arabic as their main language (what you did at least twice in the Texts above), or take back you Claim and say that you were wrong about this?
Btw. i take back one Thing: i do think the man speaks arabic, but it is not his first language.

Second: You do know about koine greek? Even a short visit to Wikipedia (although i dont take it as a real reliable source for history) will give you the following:
"... was the common supra-regional form of Greek spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity. It developed through the spread of Greek following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and served as the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries."
As i said, Wikipedia is not a very good source, but it is stating the same, as any book you will read about this Topic. So, where are your sources about greek being only a very local language?
Could you answer me the following questions: Why did the jews translate their Texts into greek - the septuagint. Shouldnt they have translated it into arabic, if all People in that Region spoke arabic?
What was arabic like in the 1st Century AD? As far as my knolage goes, the "classical arabic" developed just in the time, the quran was written down. There are older roots for arabic and some can be traced back to the first or even 2nd millenium BC, but not in the form, of what you would call arabic today. You are right, that some People spoke arabic, but it was not such a widespread language until the islamic conquest. I refer you to Wikipedia to make things easy, but i can happily give you further sources for that.

In the 1st centruy AD, all around the Mediterranean, Latin and especially Greek where the most common languages - not the first language everyone spoke, but just like english is today. I can give you a lot of different sources, although most of them, that i have at my home right now, are in german. So if you want any sources in english, i will gladly Research some english versions for you.

Do you have ANY source, that would Support your Claim, that Jesus spoke arabic? Do you have ANY source, to Support your Claim, that arabic was a very common spoken language in Israel in that time? And what would be very interesting: Do you have any source that would Support your Claim, that there were some Kind of muslim palestinians in Jesus times? There are None. You just make These Things up!



Herakleios said...

One more Thing:
"The entire Middle East, and North and Central Africa ARE ALL ARABIC SPEAKERS. Arabic is their first language. This is Islam easily spread throughout those lands. It was quite easy to communicate with them."

Yes they ARE .. but the havent always been. Islam didnt spread so fast, because the People all spoke arabic. Islam spread so fast, because of conquest and conversion by sword.
Before the ilamic conquest the People of palestine spoke Greek, Aramaic, Syriac and a few arabic, although that arabic was a dialect of its own and most propably not like the arabic in the quran. http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/med/mango.asp

What i find very amusing - and the samaritan i spoke to said the same: Did you take a look at the DNA researches of the past years? It Shows, that Jews, Samaritans and Palestinians are all from the same blood.
"The results match historical accounts that Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. "
"found that the Y chromosome in Middle Eastern Arabs was almost indistinguishable from that of Jews."
http://www.ibric.org/science/97now/00_10now/001030a.html

So why the hatred? Maybe Islam divided what where Brothers once?

Osama Abdallah said...

The spoken Arabic language dates back to more than 8000 years ago, and I have no doubt that it even goes before that. And according to Islam, we believe it is the Language of Heaven and the first language that Adam, peace be upon him, spoke, because it is the Language of Heaven.

The Arabic alphabets existed among the Arabs even during BC dates, and they were forever cemented by the Glorious Quran. Visit the following links:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qBbwGczaWqEC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=arabic+language+is+8000+years+old&source=bl&ots=C0Z2QlXCsq&sig=hXM4aOCbojJBn3fFyHG0pK1dyO4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyseO1vrfJAhUD5SYKHRdOA8EQ6AEIPTAF#v=onepage&q=arabic%20language%20is%208000%20years%20old&f=false

And here is a poem written during 2400 BC in Arabic:

http://www.m-a-arabia.com/site/11538.html

Your notion that Palestinians only spoke Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew until 100 years before Islam, and then changed 180 degrees and forgot all of these languages and learned Arabic, which would then explain to you why when Caliph Omar opened Palestine after the Roman's defeat, they were 100% Arabic speakers, THIS NOTION IS QUITE EMPTY AND RIDICULOUS!! It is almost an insult to the intelligence of the reader.

If indeed Greek and/or Aramaic and/or Hebrew were our (the Palestinians) first language, then Islam would not have been able to eliminate any of them! After all, the Iranians are still not Arabic speakers today. The Turks are not also Arabic speakers today, and the Muslims above them from Albania and Kosova and Bosnia are also not Arabic speakers today.

WHY ONLY THE PALESTINIANS HAVE TO DUMP THEIR GREEK LANGUAGE AND REPLACE IT WITH ARABIC ALL WITHIN 100 YEARS?? You are not making any sense!

The bias and hate towards Islam and Arabic has caused for much lies to be invented against Arabic to suppress Arabic. It remains 100% clear that:

1- Jesus spoke Arabic.
2- Jesus lived among many Arabic speakers.
3- Greek was not Palestine's first language.
4- Greek was and had always been a foreign language there.
5- Greek was never a global language, nor even dominant in the near by lands of the Roman empire, such as in modern-day Italy and Turkey. These are non-Greek speaking lands that neighbor Greece from the east and the west.

6- Arabic had always existed in Arabia.

Furthermore, the Bible talks about three Babylons:

1- Assyria's Babylon.
2- The Virgin Daughter of Babylon (Arabia).
3- The future Babylon or Mystery Babylon.

Assyria's Babylon had been replaced with Islam today. And the Bible speaks greatly about demolishing the idols of the Virgin Daughter of Babylon and bringing the Truth and Light to it. And the reason why it was called VIRGIN DAUGHTER OF BABYLON WAS BECAUSE IT HAD NO DIVINE RELIGION SENT TO IT YET. Islam came and fulfilled this.

The Bible also speaks about the New Covenant coming from the lands of Kedar, and the House of GOD Almighty will be established there, and the path of this House will be called "THE PATH OF HOLINESS". You can read the ample Biblical verses in the links that I already gave above.

As to Injil, even if it exist in Greek, it would've been taken from Aramic or Hebrew or even Arabic, because these were the languages of Palestine at that time.

As to what language Pilate and Jesus spoke, I am not sure as a Muslim if this even took place, but assuming that it did, it wouldn't matter if Jesus spoke in Greek with Pilate, because the language of the colonizer is one thing, and the language that the masses spoke in the land is another thing.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Dennis Abraham said...

Dear Osama,
Are you sure that Greek language and culture weren't present in the ancient Israel? Israel was under Seleucid Rule for years. The Seleucid rulers held Greek customs and language prime in all their colonies and the Maccabean revolt broke out in response to imposing Greek culture on Jews by force. The book of Maccabeus in the Apocrypha gives us more information on the Jewish history in the few Centuries before the birth of our Lord. Besides Hellenistic thought had great impact on Jewish philosophy as well.
Secondly, the Jewish diaspora in Greece used to come to Jerusalem for worship and religious instruction, Paul was one of them, and we read about the Greeks who came to meet Jesus in the Gospel(they met Andrew, our Lord's disciple first). If you would remember, the inscription "Jesus of Nazareth, King of Jews" was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek above our Lord's Cross.(This statement clearly reflected the contempt for Jews and a warning to all Jews who read it) If Pilate just meant write it in all languages which were there in the land and around it, he could have written it in Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit and what not.

Lastly, first century Palestine was a part of the Roman Empire more specifically eastern part of the Roman Empire and Greek was the official language of the eastern Roman Empire.

Coming to the part of Arabic Manuscripts, as you know that the Arabic language was written in Nabothean Script earlier; the language's script developed completely towards the end of AD 6th century, so I frankly doubt if Arabic manuscripts were present in Israel back then. Besides, Jesus was a Jew and why should he speak the language of the Ishmaelites, with whom Jews weren't in good terms.
Palestine, Northern Africa etc, never spoke Arabic before the Islamic invasion of those lands.
I pray that Jesus will reveal himself to you, because Jesus said "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them..."(John 6:44).
Prayers and Regards,
Dennis

Dennis Abraham said...

God loves you Osama:).
The passages which you quoted, wouldn't mean the the same if one read them in the context of the entire book. Besides, they are not a part of Torah, Sabur or Injil(which are the inspired books according to Koran), they form the part of Nabiyeem or Prophets. Taking a text out of its context makes it a pretext, and you can make the Holy Bible say anything you want to, if you would pick verses from here and there and do some verbal acrobatics. I frankly doubt if even Benjamin Keldani would have thought of them in that manner unless he wanted to make them refer to the prophet of Islam.
Praying that God would speak to you,
Prayers and Regards,
Dennis

Jesus Loves You! said...

I've never posted anything here before but do visit this website, watch debates, and occasionally read the comments. I try to avoid Osama's comments as I find him rude and hateful. It is like he just throws up a bunch of fables and Muslim fairy tales hoping something will stick. Forget that his argument from the very beginning is ridiculous at best- his problem is that he doesn't know Jesus. If he truly knew Jesus, he would think it foolish to argue about if he spoke Greek or not. Jesus is the Creator of all things and nothing was created without Him. Jesus knows the hearts of men. Jesus healed the blind, lame, sick, raised the dead, forgave sin, died on the cross as a random for all people and rose from the dead. That is just to name a few of His accomplishments and attributes. Jesus claimed to be God and proved it. Can God speak Greek- of course! That is a ridiculous question. Christians believe Jesus to be God in flesh so can He speak Greek- absolutely! I guess since the Muslim god can only understand Arabic that is why Osama is so bent at trying to say Jesus spoke Arabic. So as an olive branch to Osama, I agree that Jesus, my Lord and God can also speak and understand Arabic- he is not limited by any language or anything or anyone for that matter!

Dennis Abraham said...

Dear Osama
The word Evangelion was not used by Jews neither Arabs nor Christians for the first time, it was used by Romans to indicate the ascension of a new Emperor or the victory of the Roman army in the battle. This word was borrowed by Christians to denote the triumph over sin, and the coming of the Kingdom of God. Remember, one of the allegations against Christians during the persecution in the first centuries was that they claim to be the subjects of a new king named Jesus and not Caesar. It is not fair to fight over the etymology of the word telling that it came from the 'arabicised' for of an Aramaic word.
Besides, the word muslim (Arabic: مسلم‎, IPA: [ˈmʊslɪm]; English /ˈmʌzlɨm/, /ˈmʊzlɨm/, /ˈmʊslɨm/ or moslem /ˈmɒzləm/, /ˈmɒsləm/[13]) is the participle of the same verb of which islām is the infinitive, based on the triliteral S-L-M "to be whole, intact". I remember reading somewhere that the above S-L-M could mean peace (salaam)as well. It is childish to argue that early Christians ever referred to themselves as muslims.
We read in Acts 11:26, that the followers of the way were called Christians in Antioch, and this occurred during the time of apostles and the people who lived during this period could have easily questioned Luke when he wrote them down in Acts of the Apostles around AD 62.
Besides,around AD 116, Tacitus(a roman historian and senator) writes: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations,called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty.....

Shall I now say Text History and Reason(THR) points to the fact that Early Christians never called themselves muslims?

Praying that God reveal the truth about his only begotten son to you,
Love and Regards,
Dennis

Andrew said...

Acts 1:8 mentions the disciples being witnesses in Jerusalem. Then Judea and Samaria. Then to the ends of the earth.

Hmm. No Palestine there. I wonder why?

HisBullAssh HamAndAss said...

@Osama said {The spoken Arabic language dates back to more than 8000 years ago. I have no doubt that it even goes before that. And according to Islam, we believe it is the Language of Heaven and the first language that Adam, peace be upon him, spoke, because it is the Language of Heaven.}

Arabic language had already existed 8000 yrs ago???
This Osama guy is living in delusion and denial toward reality.


Osama said {And here is a poem written during 2400 BC in Arabic:http://www.m-a-arabia.com/site/11538.html}

LOL,

This assumption of 'arabic language had existed at time of Christ and even way before' is just absolutely pure silliness, even serious muslim intellectuals will also reject this HOAX in order to keep their dignity intact.

this Osama-guy will just receive any hoax and stupid material floating around out there and claiming it as the truth without even bother to use his mind to digest it first whether it's truly valid or not.

Osama Abdallah said...

@Andrew,

Even before the Exodus, the land had always been called the land of the Philistines. Even in Arabic, it is called Filasteen. I don't know why English chose to begin the word with a "P". So Palestine had always been called Filasteen.

The Judea and Samaria names came later, and they are names for regions. But the grand name is Palestine.

I'll respond to the other brothers later on tonight or tomorrow, GOD Almighty Willing.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Geoff said...

Really excellent article, Jonathan. However I would like to point out one major oversight. You give five "historiographical reasons for thinking that Paul’s teaching was approved by the original disciples of Jesus". But you miss, perhaps the most persuasive: 2 Peter 3:15-16. The following is from the NIV translation.

"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Peter himself not only endorses Paul's writings, but refers to them as "Scriptures" (i.e., the words of God, Himself). You can't get more definitive than that.

Herakleios said...

Dear Osama,

(at least read the 2nd part of this text and Show me with historical sources, that it wasnt that way)

when i click on the first link i get redirected to "before the dawn" by Nicholas Wade. Are you sure that link is correct? I havent read the book, but i read the summary and dont think there is something about 8000 year old arabic in it. Especialy i think, that this book goes much agains the Story of Adam - or did Adam evolve from Apes and was not created by god and Supports Evolution. As far as i have understood you in previous Posts from you, Evolution is not exactly what you would Support? God has no place in it!

The second link is just a text - do you have a scientific work, Dating that text to 2500bc? I know many text, that seem to be older, than they are. Have you ever heard of the Nibelungen in Germany? It is a tale, that most propably was written down way later, than the Events it is describing.

About the palestinians speaking only arabic. Give me please any source, or historical work that Supports that Claim. I never said, that they forgot all languages instantly and learned arabic instead. It was a process and i think many still could speak greek and other languages, as they still can today. Many palistineans speak Hebrew today and english and so on.
I think you are making one big mistake and you think the word "palistineans" would always mean the same. People living in Palestine have not always been the same and many Things changed over time. The People that call themselves palestinians today and who want the palestinian state are muslim People. Although there are Christian palestinians who propably wouldnt prefer living in a muslim Country and might be happy living in modern Israel.
If you say that Palestinians are per Definition People with arabic roots - you still cannot say, that they all spoke arabic, although this Definition would make more sense.
Palestinians in Roman times where People living in the "Provincia Syria Palaestina". Not distinction made. And that is, what i refer to, when speaking of palestinians in Roman times. It was a mix of many People with many languages, arabic being a very small minority.
The arabic language changed a lot over time and it is very hard to find any written sources before the rise of Islam. Saying it is 8000 years old, is just saying something. I dont say arabic wasnt spoken in some kind of form, but the arabic of the quran developed with the rise of Islam. Give me any proof, showing otheriwse! I say that the modern arabic is different from the arabic the People spoke 1000 years ago and much more different of the arabic the People spoke 2000 years ago. I dont say, that arabic "came into existence" with the quran. Arabic isnt even a muslim language. Many christians and jews spoke arabic Long before Mohammed. The Thing is - it wasnt the modern arabic and not the arabic of the quran.
What you get confused about is, that you think the People in modern israel were all of arab origin and spoke arabic. That is just false. Israel has always been a mix of many People and in the 1st century, Greek and Latin were the languages everyone could use to communicate. I never said, that greek was the 1st language of everybody. It was like english today, most People could use it to speak with other People. Many People in that Region did speak greek as their 1st language though ... Alexander the great build many cities and settled greek People there. Why should they stop speaking greek?

Herakleios said...

(@osama: the part for you to answer to is at the bottom)

The Population of syria and Israel changed a lot after the islamic conquest. It wasnt a Liberation of arabic speaking People. Look at Eqypt for example or other countries today, how christians are killed and persecuted and have to flee or die. Do you think it is surprising, that after a few decades the muslim, arabic speaking People are in the majority?

You really get confused about the languages. You say: "Greek was never a global language, nor even dominant in the near by lands of the Roman empire, such as in modern-day Italy and Turkey. These are non-Greek speaking lands that neighbor Greece from the east and the west."

Yet it doesnt say anything about greek not being a language spoken by many People - not as their first language. With your reasoning one could say, that english is not a dominant language in the world, because in Germany People still speak german and that is a Country Close to England. Yet every child learns english at School!

By the way ... maybe you should take a look at the history of Turkey. It was greek in large parts and especialy the west coast was very greek! Other parts were inhabitet by non-greek People, but still they could speak greek. The capital of turkey had been the capital of the east-roman empire, with greek being the Major language besides Latin. You see, how conquest can Change Things? Now most People speak Turkish in Istanbul ... go back in time and they spoke greek in constantinopel. The same thing happened in Israel and most arabic speaking countries today. They got conquered and over time, arabic got the dominant language and muslim People had a much easier life and Islam became the majority Religion in those countries.

Osama Abdallah said...

Dear brother Herakleios,

In regards to links that demonstrate to you that Arabic dates back to thousands and thousands of years back, I could give you many of them and especially ones in Arabic. And you would of course reject them. But I've given you the best proof and you haven't really answered it. You kept beating the bush around it. All of Arabia from the North to the South, and all of North and Central Africa were all Arabic speakers when Islam came. Islam is not that far off in time from Christianity. In the relative time of history, it only came a few centuries after Christianity. SO THERE WAS NO TIME AT ALL FOR THE ARABS TO CHANGE THEIR GREEK LANGUAGE TO ARABIC. And what makes your argument weaker and weaker is that these lands were under the Romans' control. So Greek should've been deeply rooted in them. But opposite to that, we find Greek almost non-existent there. So with this my brother, it is more than abundantly clear that:

1- Jesus existed among Arabic speakers and other non-Arabic speakers.

2- Jesus preached in Arabic and in other languages.


3- The Arabic manuscripts of Palestine and Arabia were burned by the 7 Roman emperors who burned all of the Christian writings that they could get their hands on.

As to Greek and how popular it was, sure it was in every land that the Romans conquered, but it was hardly the first-tongue or mother-tongue language of the nations that were conquered. You can show example after example of how the ruling authority were Greek speakers, but non of this really means anything. It remains unrefuted that Arabs did indeed speak Arabic throughout THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST and North and Central Africa.

Have a blessed day.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Geoff said...

@Osama

Ah, no. Arabic was mainly spoken on the Arabian peninsula until the Islamic conquests. The native language of the speakers in the area of Jesus' ministry was Aramaic. Almost everyone in the Mediterranean region spoke Koine Greek. It was the common language used for trade among speakers whose first language was something else (and also native speakers of Greek). The idea that Jesus was "among Arabic speakers" is pure fantasy. Most likely, Jesus or the Apostles did not even know Arabic and virtually no one in the entire Mediterranean region was an Arab. That happened with Islamic conquests.

You're real doing a terrible job as an apologist for Islam. When you make these outrageously ignorant statements it just lowers your credibility to the point that is difficult to take seriously anything you say. BTW, I'm curious if you also maintain that the Temple Mount is not the site of the Second Jewish Temple that was, by every credible historical account, destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Because I've heard a lot of Islamists try to deny the historical Jewish presence in Jerusalem, the historical validity of the site of the Temple Mount, and even that Jerusalem was a city of Jews going back to King David. Are you also one of these people?

SgtKOnyx said...

@Osama Abdallah
Hey, I am quite glad that you have chosen to stand for your position! However I must inform you that you are simply wrong. Arabic could not be 8000 years old, as even secular sources say humans are not much more than 10,000 years old. As to your refusal to understand the difference between a trade language and a primary language, use this as an example: All global trade is done in U.S. Dollars, whether the local currency is U.S. Dollars or French Euros or Chinese Yen. Similarly all trade in the Mediterranean was done in a rough Greek that everyone could learn. It was useful because many already spoke it due to Greek conquests in the area long past. There is simply no evidence for Arabic being a particularly common language at that time in that area. This unfortunately undermines your earlier points. Frankly Jesus was not a Muslim and texts from shortly after the time of writing show that there is simply not enough time for the New Testament to have been corrupted to the point of His original teachings having been Islamic. The teachings we see simply contradict the Quran too much.
God's Grace follow you and may the Spirit act on your heart.

Osama Abdallah said...

@Geoff,

And with your vast knowledge, when did the people of the entire northern Arabian region begin to speak Arabic? And when did they **** so abruptly lost Greek or Aramaic or whatever language you choose? Give me an exact year. Don't just give me empty anti-Arabs and anti-Islam assertions.

Let's see if you can figure out on your own just how ridiculous your false teachings were regarding the Arabic language in the Middle Eastern region. And while you're at it, how come the Assyrians in Iraq and Syria and Iran and Turkey still speak Aramaic? And how come the Kurds in those regions also still speak Kurdish? How come they never abruptly loose their Aramaic and Kurdish? And when did they, the Assyrians, so abruptly loose their Greek? And the Kurds too. Did not your church teach you that they never really spoke Greek? Or did they only teach you that it was the Arabs who lost their Greek?

Please name me the dates. Don't just give me empty assertions. You have words like MUSLIM (MUSHLEM) that even your Assyrian and Greek scholars don't know where it came from! So your sources are corrupt and lacking. Don't fight the Truth, because you would be then fighting GOD and joining satan. Let the Truth be.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Osama Abdallah said...

@Geoff,

And who was the Canaanite woman in Matthew-1521-28? Did Jesus say that it was the GREEKS who were the Jews' dogs? Or was it the Assyrians after all who were the Jews' dogs? Or was it the Arab pagans who lived in Palestine, i.e., the Palestinians? And what language did she speak? Your Scriptures recorded this in Greek, but Greek is a mere translation. Even your scholars admit to this. So Jesus had spoken another language with her. Why couldn't that language be Arabic according to you? It's not like we're talking about England here! We're talking about Arabia, a region that is most dominated by Arabic speaking people, even those who are not Arabs do speak Arabic.

And going back to the "dogs" point, when the woman believed, what did Jesus say to her? We are believers in Isa (Jesus), peace be upon him. And we spoke and do speak Arabic. Arabic was there and had always been there.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Herakleios said...

@Osama: Please give me the many links - english ones prefered.
Either my english is so bad, or you dont get what i want to say. I never said, that arabic was not spoken in Jesus time, but it was concentrated on the Arabia Region. You make very bold Claims, when you say taht ALL!! of North and Central Africa were speaking Arabic. That Claim is just not true. Many languages and dialects were spoken in those lands. The parts of North Africa bordering the mediterrenean were almost all Roman provinces in some time. Carthago in the earlier times was definitely NOT speaking arabic and the People living there after didnt speak arabic too! Until the 6th century even a lot of germanic speaking People came to North africa - the Vandals. You think they spoke arabic?
Another Point is .. what IS arabic? Is it the language of the quran, or do you include the language(s) it developed from. Or are you saying, that arabic has always been the same?

Herakleios said...

You assume that all of North and central africa was populated by Arabs ... and that is not true. They might have been a minority and in some parts a majority - but many, many other People lived there too. Just as in Israel.

The most important Point still will be - what do you define as arabic. Do you hold the islamic view of the golden Version of the quran in heaven? So how is it, that Linguists can proof, that arabic developed over time and was much different over the centuries. Even after Mohammed it still changed a lot!

HisBullAssh HamAndAss said...

quote, "Thus, Al-Qurturbi, Al Tabari, and Ibn Ishaq all are led to praise the apostle Paul as a direct consequence of these verses".

Ibn Ishaq(704-768)and Al-Tabari(838-923) are two of the oldest scholars who describe how muslim see apostle Paul 'quite positively' at the time of Muhammad till their time. Qurtubi(1214-1273)came from later generation but still the view toward apostle Paul still positive. This Hoax but vicious accusation toward Paul was came later not until the late 13th to 14th CE propagated by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah.

Since Paul is so central in theology of Christianity how come the older generation of Muslim very close to Muhammad's time depict him with respect and not even one speak negative about him ? Moreover how come Muhammad himself had never tried to expose this alleged Paul's heretical teaching ? This is so awkward considering how Apostle Paul in nowadays is being attacked so viciously by Muslim for accusing him as the primary factor for deviating the supposedly 'Muslim's followers of Christ'.

My opinion in this matter ; I believe Muhammad also considered himself as follower of apostle Paul's teaching and he never considered Paul as this negative person whom Muhammad's followers after 13th CE have wrongly viewed.

1. The central of Paul's doctrine is Justification is not by Law / Good Deeds but by Faith, please notice one of the authentic teaching of Muhammad; Narrated Abu Huraira, Allah's Apostle said, "A MAN WHO NEVER DID ANY GOOD DEED, said that if he died, his family should burn him and throw half the ashes of his burnt body in the earth and the other half in the sea, for by Allah, if Allah should get hold of him, He would inflict such punishment on him as He would not inflict on anybody among the people. But Allah ordered the sea to collect what was in it (of his ashes) and similarly ordered the earth to collect what was in it (of his ashes). Then Allah said (to the recreated man), 'Why did you do so?' The man replied, 'For being afraid of you, and you know it (very well).' SO ALLAH FORGAVE HIM." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 597).

It appears Muhammad also took this justification by faith and not by good deeds doctrine from Paul's teaching.


2.In fact Muhammad quotes Paul's Epistle contributing to the authenticity of Paul's writings, one Muhammad put it in Quran and the other in hadith.

Allah's Apostle said, "Allah said, "I have prepared for My Pious slaves things which have never been seen by an eye, or heard by an ear, or imagined by a human being." If you wish, you can recite this Verse from the Holy Quran:--"No soul knows what is kept hidden for them, of joy as a reward for what they used to do.[Sahih Bukhari], this is direct quotation from 1 Cor 2:9

Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear…” [Surah 2:286]. quoting almost the same with 1 Cor 10:13,He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand

The original teaching of Muhammad and the Islamic view of Muhammad's followers until late 13th CE didn't have any 'beef' with apostle Paul in fact it appears to somehow confirm Paul's apostleship.

Osama Abdallah said...

"You assume that all of North and central africa was populated by Arabs"

Not Arabs, but Arabic speaking people. An Arabic speaker may not necessarily be an Arab.

"@Osama: Please give me the many links - english ones prefered.
Either my english is so bad, or you dont get what i want to say. I never said, that arabic was not spoken in Jesus time, but it was concentrated on the Arabia Region."

And based on the overwhelming evidence that I gave you regarding MANY OF the people of Palestine were not only Arabic speakers, BUT EVEN MOST OF THEM WERE ARABIC SPEAKERS.

In regards to the links, here are some. I want the reader to see here that Arabic is now suddenly a language that DID EXIST DURING CHRIST'S TIME, but now they say yeah but it didn't exist in Palestine, despite the fact that the ENTIRE NORTHERN ARABIAN REGION ALL SPEAK ARABIC, not just Palestine. Notice that it was claimed that Arabic didn't come until 400 or so years after Christ. But now, it existed during his time :). Anyway, here are the links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkgqaEr-fQE (this is by an Arabian professor)

http://www.alghad.com/prints/777807-%D9%84%D8%BA%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%AA?s=508957ea7a511e065bd4ee6d03d6880e

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9+%D9%85%D9%86+%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84+%D8%A3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86

How about we just the Truth be! Let's not fight it. This age that we exist in is all messed up and is the age of the dajjal and the liars (not claiming anyone here is). So let's not embrace the claims of the racist and bigoted liars who try to rewrite history and bury the Truth.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Osama Abdallah said...

More scientific links regarding the Arabic language dating 1000s and 1000s of years back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsZypF8coIo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsknIRtmSxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IThGjQ4lsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQZsqCuDVHo

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

SgtKOnyx said...

@Osama Abdallah
Here's a quote from your original comment.
"Notice here Sam Shamoun's "refutation" to this is his use of the Greek "source". But Jesus and the people of Palestine didn't speak Greek!!"
This is what we were overall dealing with. Jesus spoke Greek. Most of the NT is in Greek. The entire Mediterranean spoke Greek as a trade language, so most would understand it. There is no evidence of Arabic being a common enough language that Jesus would speak it to be clearly understood! Your premise is flawed and the rest of your arguments fall because of it.

SgtKOnyx said...

@Osama Abdallah
Your full quote:

"Notice here Sam Shamoun's "refutation" to this is his use of the Greek "source". But Jesus and the people of Palestine didn't speak Greek!! In fact, the disciples had to learn Greek through TOUNGUES OF FIRE that came down upon them. Otherwise, Greek was a foreign language there to most of the people."

Osama Abdallah said...

"There is no evidence of Arabic being a common enough language that Jesus would speak it to be clearly understood!"

You have no evidence for anything, my dear. Just repeating the falsehood that you were raised with, and that is GOD Almighty hates Arabs, and Arabic didn't even exist during Jesus' times. And many keep parroting "GOD loved Jacob and GOD hated Essau!". As if this has ANYTHING TO DO with Islam and the Muslims and the language of Arabic.

As to Greek, it was the language of the colonizers in Palestine. But it was never the native language there. Heck, we don't even know the Greek Alphabets in the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST! Even the Christian Arabs don't speak Greek, except for those who received specialized education on it.

And how on earth did you come up with Arabic wasn't around there?? Arabs were very popular for their caravans travels and tradings. Plus the SHAM area (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan, and the Iraq area had always been considered Arab lands. And this is why the people there SIDED WITH THE CENTRAL ARABS against the Persians and the Romans.

Learn and remove the ignorance my brother. We live in the age of liars and lies. Don't let the liars rewrite history and feed lies into your brain.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Osama Abdallah said...

It was the Northern Arabs who carried most of the brunt of fighting both the Romans and Persians, and it was the Northern Arabs who crushed both of them, and it was the Northern Arabs who crushed the crusaders and almost killed Richard lionheart in the battle, and it was the Northern Arabs' two capitals, Damascus and Baghdad that were the capitals, in different times, of the Islamic Caliphate that stretched from the borders of France (Spain was under the Muslims' rule) all the way to the borders of China. And it is from the Northern Arabs the Lord Jesus Christ will return! Don't believe me? See it for yourself from the Bible. He won't return from Jerusalem. He will return from the Northern Arabs, and Prophet Muhammad also made this Prophecy:

www.answering-christianity.com/east.htm

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

HisBullAssh HamAndAss said...

@Osama

The link you gave is just about some weird theories propagated by Arab ideologists whom either want to propagate Islam or Arab supremacy.

This weird theory of Arabic language already existed before time of Christ, from Arab ideologists like you is so easily refuted by historical facts, ancient writings and artifacts.

Nothing serious to be regarded here.

Dennis Abraham said...

Hi, you know something?? English existed in North America before the Europeans arrived there. Your notion that ancient Americans only spoke only Quechua languages, Aymara, Guarani etc, until 100 years before the arrival of Europeans, and then changed 180 degrees and forgot all of these languages and learned English, which would then explain to you why, when Europeans colonized the present United States after defeating the native American tribes, they were 100% English speakers, THIS NOTION IS QUITE EMPTY AND RIDICULOUS!! It is almost an insult to the intelligence of the reader.

If indeed Quechua languages, Aymara, Guarani etc were the Indigenous American people's first language, then the English would not have been able to eliminate any of them! After all, the people of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan are still not English speakers today, though those countries were British colonies earlier. Besides there is a considerably large population in countries like Malaysia and the erstwhile British colonies in Africa who don't understand English..

If I'm wrong why on Earth would the entire territory drop their languages all of a sudden, and start speaking in English???? Give me the exact date???
In which language did the First explorers speak to the leaders of the tribes??
Final conclusion: the first language of Indigenous Americans was English. The wave of nationalism which broke out among them in order to protect themselves from the European colonizers, lead to the misrepresentation of History. The colonizers might also have the ancient English writings in North America, inorder to prove to the world, the uniqueness and supremacy of their civilization and Language.

Let the Truth be! Let's not fight it. This age that we exist in is all messed up and is the age of the dajjal and the liars (not claiming anyone here is). So let's not embrace the claims of the racist and bigoted liars who try to rewrite history and bury the Truth.


Sounds familiar?????

GOD LOVES YOU OSAMA, May he take away the blinders which prevent you from seeing the truth revealed through God's only Son and our Lord. Looking forward to seeing you as one among us, in his Kingdom.

I have not intended to offend you Brother, at the same time, kindly evaluate your "faith" in the light of history and reason. None gains anything by hurting anyone. Presuppositions would only help us in assuming and inferring "facts" which don't resemble history even in their distant possible meaning.
God Bless you Brother.

AT THE SAME TIME, I HUMBLY STATE THAT I LOVE AND RESPECT ALL MY BROTHERS FROM THE INDIGENOUS AMERICAN COMMUNITIES. IF I HAVE HURT YOU WITH MY WORDS, I APOLOGIZE AND REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY FORGIVE ME, AS IT WAS PURELY UNINTENTIONAL. LOVE YOU,
God bless us all, May lead us into the fullness of truth about Himself and his son Our Blessed Saviour,
love and regards,
Dennis

Herakleios said...

@Osama: Oh nice.. youtube links. You seem to be very well educated, how historians work and what counts as a reliable source. Wikipedia and Youtube - yes.. i think i will base my research on those sources when i will write my Master.
With just one sentence, you made your complete argumentation worthless and disqualified yourself for any further discussion.
You said: "Give me an exact year.".
This shows, that you have no idea, how history works. We are speaking of developements here. Same goes for the arabic language. It developed. I never said it came into existence at a certain point in time. It changed a lot and the language "arabic" people speaking today is very different from what it was 1000 years ago and even more different from what people spoke 2000 years ago. Even today there are big differences within arabic.
Your claim, that most of northern afrika spoke arabic is just false. Egypt for example had a big koptic population for a long time and they spoke koptic (or is it coptic in english?). See how you just dismiss such facts and just claim that they all spoke arabic?

I will wathc all your links you provided, but as i said - youtube is not a reliable source of any kind. Give me scientific works = BOOKS! By historians and linguists. I have access to a very good library from the university in the city i live in. It will be easy to get any book there. I myself study history and protestant theology and have a lot of work to do and learn - so i have not the spare time right now to research on my own. When i got more time i will surely do that. All i know from my history studies is, that arabic had never that big influence in pre islamic times, as you suggest. I think every historian will be on my side with that.

Please educate yourself with real scientific works and learn how to "study" as a historian. Watching youtube videos is bad education and even wikipedia is at very best a bad start for historical studies. If i would quote from wikipedia in any work in my history studies my professors would mark my work as failed. Its the first thing people learn in the 1st Semester at university - those things: wikipedia and even worse: youtube .. those are NOT sources to quote (except that work would be about wikipedia ;) )
I think it is ok to quote wikipedia in a surface level discussion like this one - but to support any scientific claims, one has to use works that can hold up to scientific standards.
Forgive me for not answering to your links now - i just have to finish some work for university, but will do have a look at the links in the next few days.
For the future - please provide books by reputable historians and linguists to support your claims. I will not forget this and do some research after christmas - i have a bit more time then and will provide you with some books i will find about this topic. Until then, i will be reading the blog but propably have no time to answer. So see you after Christmas -

and to all people here a happy 2nd Advent tomorrow (do people say it that way in english?)

SgtKOnyx said...

@Osama Abdallah

If you are going to answer our statements it would help greatly if you were to read them. You claim that we said that Greek was the native language in Israel, and we did not. We said it was a TRADE LANGUAGE! Not the primary language but a secondary language for conversing with people who were not local, like English in modernity and French not so long ago. As for the "Northern Arabs", I was unaware they lived in heaven or in the clouds.

Andrew said...

Osama> perhaps you should read this. Your position that israel was called "palestine" at the time of Jesus is untenable.

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp63.htm

Geoff said...

@Osama

You said, "And with your vast knowledge, when did the people of the entire northern Arabian region begin to speak Arabic? And when did they **** so abruptly lost Greek or Aramaic or whatever language you choose? Give me an exact year. Don't just give me empty anti-Arabs and anti-Islam assertions."

Well, it could have something to do with the violent Islamic invasion that where the men are killed, the women enslaved for sex, and children sold off to slavery. Or, maybe it was the constant subjugation and humiliation non-believers are subject. Or, maybe the Jizya, or some combination of these. I guess people would figure out that it's either best to get along or flee. But, the notion that this would have happen in some "exact year" is so preposterous that it's difficult to know how to respond to that. But, I'll tell you what. You tell me the exact year the British started speaking English and I'll tell you the exact year the majority started speaking Arabic in the Mediterranean.

You said, "And while you're at it, how come the Assyrians in Iraq and Syria and Iran and Turkey still speak Aramaic? And how come the Kurds in those regions also still speak Kurdish? How come they never abruptly loose their Aramaic and Kurdish?" Probably for the same reason some Irish speak Irish Gaelic, Scotts speak Scottish Gaelic, the Welsh speak Welsh, and then there's Manx. Perhaps its the same reason many people speak French in Louisiana and many American Indian tribes speak English but retain their traditional languages.

You said, "And who was the Canaanite woman in Matthew-1521-28? Did Jesus say that it was the GREEKS who were the Jews' dogs? Or was it the Assyrians after all who were the Jews' dogs? Or was it the Arab pagans who lived in Palestine, i.e., the Palestinians? And what language did she speak? Your Scriptures recorded this in Greek, but Greek is a mere translation....Why couldn't that language be Arabic according to you? It's not like we're talking about England here! We're talking about Arabia, a region that is most dominated by Arabic speaking people, even those who are not Arabs do speak Arabic." It's written in Greek because it was meant the reach the widest possible audience in a language understood by the greatest number of people. Why couldn't it have been Arabic? Unlikely, as most speakers in the region natively spoke Aramaic. The Canaanite woman was probably a Samaritan, who were a people that are mixed ethnicity with the original Canaanites, Assyrians, or Babylonians (brought in to displace the inhabitants during the Assyrian and/or Babylonian conquest) and Jews that were left after the the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom and the Babylonian conquest of the Southern Kingdom. It's not clear. You ask, "Why couldn't that language be Arabic according to you? It's not like we're talking about England here!" Well, she might have spoken Arabic, but that would have been anomalous. Then again, maybe she spoke Greek as either her first or second language. Maybe Latin, or something else. We don't know. We do know that Arabic was not commonly spoken anywhere in the Mediterranean region prior to the Islamic conquests.

Now, I've pretty much wasted as much time as I care to waste. This is obviously not productive because you are not amenable to reality. However, you never answered my questions:

BTW, I'm curious if you also maintain that the Temple Mount is not the site of the Second Jewish Temple that was, by every credible historical account, destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Because I've heard a lot of Islamists try to deny the historical Jewish presence in Jerusalem, the historical validity of the site of the Temple Mount, and even that Jerusalem was a city of Jews going back to King David. Are you also one of these people?

Osama Abdallah said...

@Herakleios,

It is not YouTube or Wikipedia or any website including this one that we're discussing through or my website or any website. It's the sources and resources. Like in History Channel when they make documentary films on certain historical events, they bring scholars and professors to put their inputs. You can't just dismiss the arguments put forth by saying oh yeah great, the history channel??? What a joke! The YouTube videos that I gave you were by PhD Professors with publications and research. Not just mere individuals. And Wikipedia is not a joke, by the way. They have tons of great references. Yes, somethings they have errors, but the majority of the articles that I've encountered had great references and scanned images in them.

So none of them renders my argumentation as worthless as you put it. Look at the merits, not the websites.


@Denis Abraham,

The European colonizers wiped out more than 95% of the Native Americans population. So languages getting lost from them was due to the massive extermination of the people and their civilization.

And either you didn't read everything, or you're trying to twist and pervert the whole thing here. The Northern Arabs were under the Romans and Persians up until the Muslims came and defeated them. SO GREEK SHOULD'VE BEEN DEEPLY ROOTED AMONG THE PALESTINIANS. YET, NOT ONLY WE DON'T SPEAK GREEK, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN READ IT! We don't even know the Greek Alphabets. Not even the ARAB CHRISTIANS DO! They have to learn Greek through special education.


@ SgtKOnyx,

As to Greek being a Trade language, sure I have no problem with that. It was also the local governments' and/or authorities' language. But this doesn't mean that the general population spoke it. Not even the Assyrians. Not the Arabs, nor the Hebrews nor the Assyrians. And as I explained above, Greek is virtually NOT SPOKEN anywhere on earth outside Greece by any nation on this earth. This clearly proves that Greek was never any other nation's native language outside Greece.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

stvn said...

@osama

they also asked you to mention scholarly books by non biased historians it think you left the one out.

PS Latin was also once a world language, just wanted to mention that and not even Italy speaks Latin anymore. So you example makes no sense at all

SgtKOnyx said...

@Osama Abdallah
You wanna re-read your response to me? You might find how you disprove your own point! To save time, a trade language is a language spoken by many people allowing them to speak to one another. This defeats the claim that Greek was unspoken outside Greece. Suffice to say thay any language spoken by many people outside of the native population is simply not what you think Greek is and it is how we think.

Andrew said...

Yeah. I'm curious. Does Osama concede that there was a Jewish temple on the temple mount that was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD?

Osama Abdallah said...

@Stvn,

In regards to the scholarly references, I already gave videos of professors that did a lot of research in the Arabic language history.

As to Latin, it didn't die out. It got evolved into new languages and dialects that developed from it, such as the Italian, French, Romanians and others. It is also still used today by the Catholic Church. So it didn't go extinct. As two bloggers put it:

"It didn't disappear. It simply changed into French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and other Latin languages, all of which might be termed modern dialects of Latin.

If you compare the English of Shakespeare's time to modern US English, it will give you some idea of what can happen to a noble language in the course of a few centuries."

"It didn't really die, it blended in to French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian and Portuguese. And it is still used in the Catholic Church and still studied by many people. Latin declined because the Roman empire fell and so it evolved. All languages will eventually evolve. It won't happen to English anytime soon but maybe in a very very very long time it will fade out."

SOURCE: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100522140933AAxnpho


@ SgtKOnyx,

In regards to Greek being a trade language, brother there could've been ample translators and interpreters around that spoke multiple languages, especially in the official markets. Or Greek simply wasn't really that big. I find it quite odd that no nation today outside Greece speaks Greek. And I find it more odd that no one even can read it, or even its basic alphabets.

So after all, Greek might've gotten inflated too much by Christians simply because of their bias towards it because it is the current New Testament's language. So it could be no more than bias and exaggeration.

In the Middle East, Aramaic never died. Kurdish never died. Persian never died. Turkish never died. It's not like Islam came to exterminate languages. And like I said several times already above, PALESTINIANS WERE UNDER THE ROMAN OCCUPATION. SO GREEK SHOULD'VE BEEN DEEPLY ROOTED AMONG THEM. Not just them, but all of the Northern Arabs except the ones that were under the Persian occupation. But we don't have any evidence that Greek was strong among the Northern Arabs back then. Not only we don't understand Greek, we can't even read it. And this includes the Middle Eastern Christians as well; Assyrians included.

And Assyrians too never spoke Greek! They never did before Islam and they never did after Islam.

So Greek was exaggerated by Christians due to religious bias, because you don't find it spoken anywhere today except in Greece. Not even in Europe.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Osama Abdallah said...

@ Andrew,

The land had always been called Philistine. Even in the Bible before the Exodus it was called that. And the people in the land had always been called Philistines. This is why till this day we maintained our national title, Philistines (Palestinians).

Israel was a name that came after, and it was given to the people. But this doesn't make the name of the land as such. So it is no more than an alias for the Jews. It is not the original name for the land.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

stvn said...

@osama

"In regards to the scholarly references, I already gave videos of professors that did a lot of research in the Arabic language history."
so you have no sources from non arabic historians.

"Israel was a name that came after, and it was given to the people."
what was given and what people and who give it ?

Osama Abdallah said...

"Israel was a name that came after, and it was given to the people."
what was given and what people and who give it ?

The people of Israel are called Beni Israel. Beni means people of or tribe of. According to Islam, Allah Almighty permitted the Jews to live in Palestine, but not to entirely own it. This is why Jews had always existed in Palestine and in the entire Middle East and in the entire Muslim world before 1948. Allah Almighty told them to live in the land after they fled the persecution and death of the Pharaoh who refused to become a Muslim.

And by the way, there are no Jews. The original Believers had always been called Muslims. Not only this is in Islam, but Jewish historian and Rabbi Ben Abrahamson proved this as well. And they are those who HAADU (followed the Right Path). This is where HUDA (GUIDANCE) comes from. Visit the following links:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Ben+Abrahamson+Jews+were+Muslims
http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Short-videos---Dont-miss/29003/rabbi-ben-abrahamson-is-explaining

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rabbi+Ben+Abrahamson+is+explaining+how+Judaism+sees+devout+Muslims+as+perfect+monotheists

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Dennis Abraham said...

Brother Osama,
You just mentioned the reason behind the presence of Arab speaking population in Northern Africa and Palestine. Migration and Conquest. Beibers of North Africa never spoke Arabic. But migrants from yemen etc, might have been present, but never as a majority. Muslim invaders never walked into a land with tributes to discuss terms of peace. They destroyed churches or turned them into mosques(but before that, they engraved in 'God doesn't beget is not begotten'. People were massacred, their faith was oppressed and were converted to the religion of Arabs by force.
If you are a seeker of truth who doesn't take sides, you can actually find out the attitude of invaders to the people whom they conquered, from the early Islamic sources: they were either asked to convert or to pay Jizya, Religions were oppressed and were fought against till the Muslims became the uppermost. If you're sincere to yourself, you would admit that these things are found in Hadiths Al Bukhari, Al Muslim and Quran.

This oppression and forced conversions along with continued migrations created a countries with massive Arabic majority that you see today.


Jerusalem was under seleucid and roman occupation for years, they were in succession and Greek was one of the languages that they spoke. I understand that you agree with the presence of gteek language in ancient palestine; considering the centuries they were under this rule, kindly reconsider if the influence was greater than what you believe to be, besides now 20 centuries after the greek rule, and nearly 14 centuries of arabic rule, I frankly doubt if anyone would be speakng in greek in palestine at present(I guess you agreed to this when you said:SO GREEK SHOULD'VE BEEN DEEPLY ROOTED AMONG THE PALESTINIANS. YET, NOT ONLY WE DON'T SPEAK GREEK, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN READ IT).


I leave it up to you to decide the truth. But your decisions can't change the facts of history. God bless you. May he take away the blinders which prevent you from seeing the truth. May he make his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God's glory displayed in the face of Christ.
God Bless,
Looking forward to seeing you as one among us brethren,
Prayers and regards,
Dennis

stvn said...

@oasam

the like you provided has nothing to do with your statements.

Can you pleas quote the koran and the hadiths to support your statement?
"Allah Almighty permitted the Jews to live in Palestine, but not to entirely own it."

Osama Abdallah said...

@Stvn,

Here is the Noble Verse that you asked for:

[017:104] And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

The Jews were permitted to live in Palestine, and Allah Almighty Promised them that He will bring them all from all over the world into Palestine when their second punishment's time was to come. For more on this, you can visit:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/nuclear_doom_prophecy.htm


@Denis,

What you said is not accurate at all! Not only that, but as I mentioned, Greek wasn't known even among the non-Muslims. And Arabic had always been a 1st language in the Middle East long before Islam came. And all other languages till this day are preserved in the Middle East. Why only Greek had to go extinct there?? It's because it was never a major language from the beginning.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

SgtKOnyx said...

@Osama Abdallah
You just agreed Greek was a trade language, but now it wasn't even spoken? Sounds fishy. As to why Greek is no longer spoken in the areas surrounding Israel, there have been several conquests; notably a Muslim conquest of the area. That is certainly a reason the language is no longer spoken there, as 1900 years have passed since Jesus' time so one can expect some language changes. To say that an area never spoke a language in the distant past because they don't now is a silly argument. Please remember the debate on language is about whether Greek was spoken in Israel in early A.D. years.

stvn said...

@ osama

if allah told the to live there and he will gather them out of various crouds, then where did you get this :" but not to entirely own it"

and also you did not tell me if allah speaks arabic

stvn said...

i read your article :



(a)- Lesser and lesser fossil fuel and natural resources to support all of them!
(b)- Fossil fuel and natural resources are depleting.
(c)- The world population will be in too many billions, and will not be sustainable!



Major Shale Find Could Guarantee Israel’s Oil Supply For Years

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Major-Shale-Find-Could-Guarantee-Israels-Oil-Supply-For-Years.html

stvn said...

@osama

were you debating here ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jgzESBjhx8&feature=em-subs_digest-g-vrecs

it certainly seems your style

Geoff said...

"And by the way, there are no Jews." Wow. That's real special. Then you should be good with the Israelis controlling Israel, since they're Muslims.

"Here is the Noble Verse that you asked for..." You can stop right there, because nobody you're trying to convince accepts either the historical accuracy or divine authority of the Q'uran. It's demonstrably inaccurate and self-contradictory and there is no reason to accept its authority.

Still you haven't answered my questions:

BTW, I'm curious if you also maintain that the Temple Mount is not the site of the Second Jewish Temple that was, by every credible historical account, destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Because I've heard a lot of Islamists try to deny the historical Jewish presence in Jerusalem, the historical validity of the site of the Temple Mount, and even that Jerusalem was a city of Jews going back to King David. Are you also one of these people?

I guess that since you don't think there were or are Jews, as ludicrous as that sounds, the answers are no. I expect that if Charles Martel had not defeated Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi at the Battle of Tours you'd be talking about how France was always controlled by Arabs going back eight millennia and that the French were really always Muslim.

Osama Abdallah said...

@SgtKOnyx,

Let me bring this discussion to and end with this simple fact. When the Muslims started their battles with the Romans, the Palestinians and all of the rest of the Northern Arabs were Arab speakers. And when Omar, the 2nd Islamic Caliph, opened Palestine by him personally going to Jerusalem, they were all Arabic speakers, and people were embracing Islam left and right with him. The multitudes were entering Islam from all towns of Palestine, and they were all Arabic speakers.

GREEK BEING OUR LANGUAGE THERE IS SIMPLY A FALSE CLAIM. It was never our first language and never will be. "Our" here includes ALL MIDDLE EASTERNS. Muslims and non-Muslims were never Greek speakers. Greek was inflated and exaggerated by the Christians because of religious bias. Even the countries that have majority Christians DON'T SPEAK GREEK EITHER!

So much for Greek being a global language. I was never as such. I say all of this with all respect and love to the Greek people. This is not about being against any Greek person.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

SgtKOnyx said...

@ Osama Abdallah
Well, you seem to have failed in your task of ending the conversation due to one small fact: THAT WAS 700 YEARS AFTER JESUS! You claim that the area of Israel spoke Arabic about six hundred years before Mohammed and that is simply not bourn out by the facts. Too many manuscripts from that period are in Greek, and you yourself earlier admitted to Greek being a trade language in the area in the first and second century (Caliph Omar was eighth). So don't use that argument, as you yourself said it was wrong.

Brotherly Love
SgtKOnyx.

Geoff said...

@Osama

"GREEK BEING OUR LANGUAGE THERE IS SIMPLY A FALSE CLAIM."

You can stop right there because there in no "OUR" when it comes to the population of Israel, North Africa, and the entire Mediterranean coastal region. The area was not populated by Arabs and they did not speak Arabic. Koine Greek was the trade language (for those that needed it for commerce and trade) spoken across the region with various local languages, including Greek (various dialects), Latin, Egyptian, and Aramaic--from what I've read some Anatolian languages, as well as Akkadian might have survived into the early 1st Millennium AD also; Hebrew was also spoken, from what I understand, but not in every day usage. It is true that Aramaic and Arabic are both Semitic languages and the lines between them, as well as Hebrew, are probably a bit blurry here and there, especially after of millennia of mingling. But Arabic was not generally spoken in the region and, in fact, we know that direct quotes from Jesus are in Aramaic. There are many of them. Though not a scholarly article you can read the Wikipedia page for more information (particularly direct quotes from the New Testament in Aramaic):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

You would think that, while being crucified on the cross The Lord would speak in the language most familiar to Him in His human nature. He said, "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which in Aramaic is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" If he was an Arabic speaker then he would have cried out in Arabic. If the New Testament use of Koine Greek was a whitewash then they would not have bothered to quote him speaking in Aramaic, but simply have used Greek. Or, are we to believe while suffering crucifixion he went to the trouble of translating from his native Arabic to Aramaic just for the kicks?

The violent Muslim conquests is what brought Arabic to the Holy Land.

Bottom line: Generally speaking there were, no Arabs and no Arabic--or, at least not in any significant numbers. There is no "our". Assertions to the contrary are simply lies.

BTW, you still haven't answered my questions:

I'm curious if you also maintain that the Temple Mount is not the site of the Second Jewish Temple that was, by every credible historical account, destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Because I've heard a lot of Islamists try to deny the historical Jewish presence in Jerusalem, the historical validity of the site of the Temple Mount, and even that Jerusalem was a city of Jews going back to King David. Are you also one of these people?

Is there, perhaps, a reason why you ignore these perfectly reasonable questions? I think your answers to these questions bear directly on whether Arabic was spoken there, from an archaeological perspective, and whether your bias is unredeemable.

Geoff said...

"Let me bring this discussion to and end with this simple fact. When the Muslims started their battles with the Romans, the Palestinians and all of the rest of the Northern Arabs were Arab speakers." This is demonstrably FALSE. So, that's not a "fact", at all.

"GREEK BEING OUR LANGUAGE THERE IS SIMPLY A FALSE CLAIM." This assertion fails on two premises--quite a feat for such a small sentence. (1) Nobody said that Greek was the first language in the Holy Land in biblical times. (2) There is no "our", because the population were not Arabs.

It is interesting to note that the only contemporaneous accounts of Jesus quote him in Aramaic. Most curious for a region whose language is predominantly Arabic, don't you think?

I'll ask again:

BTW, I'm curious if you also maintain that the Temple Mount is not the site of the Second Jewish Temple that was, by every credible historical account, destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Because I've heard a lot of Islamists try to deny the historical Jewish presence in Jerusalem, the historical validity of the site of the Temple Mount, and even that Jerusalem was a city of Jews going back to King David. Are you also one of these people?