"First
of all, if your gospel [sic] is the truth then why do you have to
defend it." Superb question. The short answer is, "God commands
it." The Word of God says in Jude 3, "I found it necessary to write
to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once
for all delivered to the saints." Elsewhere He says, "But sanctify
the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone
who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with all meekness and
fear." It is a "defense" of the Truth against the flood of untruth
that washes the world. "To defend" in this sense (Gk. apologia)
means to give reasoned, Scriptural answers and proofs to those who question
or are contrary to the Truth. Whenever you respond to a question, or explain
yourself or your faith, you are in fact "giving a defense." Therefore,
though it is not so titled, your own site is a defense of Mohammedism (I
will defend the use of the term shortly).
As to your statement,
"I had no intention of creating any problems by posting
that stuff on that Christian website." Somewhat obvious duplicity
aside, that you posted on the Inner City Christian Discernment Ministry
website is neither the problem nor the issue. The God of the Bible, the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, does not fear examination. In fact, He
says plainly, "come, let us reason together" He also says,
"you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free." Faith
is pointless unless it is a faith based on solid fact. I can have all the
faith in the world that if I jump off the Empire State Building Ill fly;
and Ill still plummet like a rock to the waiting pavement below. And since
the Word of God stands up to any objective examination, it demonstrates
that it is written by the Spirit of God Himself, and is trustworthy. The
problem, Ali, is your subsequent actions. I wrote a short response and
posted it to your site. It remained up for less than a day, and
then it was deleted. I anticipated that it would have been, and re-posted
it the very next day. This went on about three or four times, each time,
my response becoming slightly longer. Finally, I went to post, and noted
that I had been banned. I could not post again for months (until I switched
ISPs, and got a new e-mail address). All this while the Inner City Christian
Discernment Ministry had the integrity to continue to allow your own post
to stand. The contrast couldnt be more drastic. It isnt that you
posted; its the apparent disingenuity in deleting unsettling posts to your
own site while enjoying the integrity of a servant of God who allowed your
own post to continue undeleted. And it is this that causes me to
question your integrity; that is not meant as an "insult" but as a rebuke.
Now, why do I insist
upon the label "Mohammedian?" First, it must be pointed out that a label
is simply a label: A useful term to summarize (in this instance) a belief
system. I refer to Jehovahs Witnesses as "Russelites," as it was Charles
"Taze" Russel who actually formulated the tenets of that faith, and "Word-Faith"
adherents as "Kenyonites" or "Kenyonists" for the same reason (Kenyonism,
aka. "Word-Faith," was created by E. W. Kenyon near the turn of the century).
Jehovahs Witnesses no more worship Russel, and Kenyonists no more worship
Kenyon, than you worship Mohammed. "Islam" is a generic term that refers
to a large group of disparate beliefs. For instance, as a Sunni (I assume,
since you accept the Hadiths as binding) Mohammedian, you certainly must
object to Louis Farrakhan being referred to as a Muslim, considering that
even you would hold his beliefs as grossly heretical his label of them
as "Nation of Islam" notwithstanding. The term applies, demonstrating that
I am specifically referring to the religion predicated on the precepts
first expounded by one Mohammed. (Though, to be fair, it is far from established
that the Sunni branch of Mohammedism accurately represents the faith of
Mohammed; the historicity of many of the Hadiths is far from an unquestionable
issue, as any knowledgeable Shia would point out.)
I will therefore continue
quite unapologetically to use the term "Mohammedian" when referring to
one of your religion.
Now to your statement,
"there is no such thing as a moon god or a sun god
in Islam." Yes, I am painfully aware that Mohammedians almost from
the beginning denied the (unfortunately for them) well-documented ontology
of "Allah." It is a fact of history, however, that the tribe from which
Mohammed came was polytheistic, and particularly devoted to the worship
of "al-Ilah," the moon god. The fact is, "Allah" is not the Arabic
word for "god," as some of the more dynamic translations into English would
have one believe. Most Semitic languages (Arabic is a Semitic tongue) use
a cognate of the Hebrew word el to mean "god." "Al-Ilah" was the
personal name for the moon god of Mohammeds tribe. Ergo, Allah is not the
God of the Bible, but is the moon god of ancient Arabian polytheism.
As such, it has absolutely
nothing to do with the God Who has inerrantly and finally revealed Himself
in the Word of God the sixty-six Books of the Old and New Testaments. Noah
worshipped and served this One True God, "Jehovah" (More properly YHWH),
as did Moses, Abraham, and all the Prophets. This One True God El Elyon,
the God Most High is the only God there is. His Word is eternal and
sure; Jesus said, "not one jot nor one tittle shall by any means pass
from this Law until all is accomplished" and "heaven and earth shall
pass away, but My Words will never pass." The God of Israel takes His
Word very, very seriously; in fact, His Word says, "I will worship toward
Your holy temple, and praise Your Name for Your lovingkindness and Your
Truth; for You have magnified Your Word above all Your Name." [Psalm
138:2] He has seen to it that His Word has been transmitted with inhuman
accuracy down the aeons, so much so that the Bible is the most attested
to body of literature of the ancient world. We are more certain of what
Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel actually wrote (100% certain, in fact)
than what even more recent writers wrote (Julius Caesar, Josephus, and
for that matter Mohammeds followers themselves when they transcribed from
memory the words of the "prophet"). The New Testament is even more solidly
attested to. We have in our possession literally thousands of copies of
the New Testament Books dating from within the first century in fact, we
have fragments of the Gospel of Matthew dating from within ten years of
the original writing. The Bible is absolutely trustworthy and inerrant.
And the God of the
Bible is vastly different from the moon god of Mohammed.
For instance, you state,
"you also said that i [sic] believe i [sic]
am going to heaven because im [sic] righteous, well i [sic]
dont [sic] know and no Muslims [sic] know that is all in
the order of god [sic]. we [sic] will all be judge on the
last day so it is not right or even lawful in Islam for any Muslim to say
for sure is [sic] going to heaven it is all up to god [sic]."
The God of the Bible, by way of contrast, tells us that we "may know
that you have [present tense] eternal life." When we
put our trust in Him, He seals us " with the Holy Spirit of promise,
who is the guarantee of our inheritance, until the redemption of
the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." [Ephesians 1:13b
14] The Word of God declares that "it is by grace that you have been
saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.
Not of works, lest any man should boast." [Ephesians 2:8-9] We are
saved not by what we do, but by what He did. And since our
salvation is based on Him and Him alone, our salvation is as sure as He
is absolutely, unswervingly sure. I know,
that if I died before even typing out this sentence, I would immediately
be eternally ushered into His Presence. In fact, in one sense it can be
said that in order to be saved I must know that I know that I am,
because it is wholly based on faith, not myself, or my own faulty, puny
efforts to be saved.
Finally, I wish to
point out that your understanding of Gods Word is somewhat limited. This
is not a "slam" so much as it is an observation of fact. For instance:
You state, "none of it was made up and it had verses from the bible [sic] to prove it wasnt made up. you [sic] can even check for your self that it isnt even there so dont [sic] tell the people on your website its there." I point you and the reader to the article I wrote in response to your posting to the Inner City Christian Discernment Ministrys website, titled "Is Jesus God?" In this I detail the Scriptural response to Alis charges. Taking verses out of context proves nothing."The one that doesnt [sic] need a son or any body. why [sic] does God need help from a son if he is the Al-Mighty [sic] and Divine. Couldnt [sic] he do everything his self [sic] such as creating the earth." Where does the Word of God say otherwise? "In the beginning," it says, "God created the heavens and the earth." God needs help from no one needs no one. God did it all by Himself. And He sustains the Creation moment-by-moment all by Himself.
Jesus is Himself God.
The Word of God makes that abundantly clear: "In the beginning was the
Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were
made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. and the
Word became Flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, as of the
Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and Truth." [John 1:1-2,
14] He is not "a son;" He is the "Unique Son" That touches on the
Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity: That there is One and only One
Eternal God, Who eternally exists in Three personally distinct ways (Father,
Son, and Spirit). I am a son of God by adoption through faith in
Jesus; He is The Eternal Son of God (and therefore God Himself)
by Nature. He is a "prophet" (Gk. prophetes; "one who speaks for"),
but not merely a prophet. He is King of kings and Lord of lords.
"For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is
written: As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every
tongue shall confess to God." [Romans 14:10b 11] But thats a
separate issue.
Then theres: "If
Jesus as you say is God then where was he during the time of Adam and Eve
there is no mention of him in the gospel." First, it doesnt matter
what "I" say about Jesus, nor (with all due respect) does it matter
what you say; it only matters what Gods Word says. And Gods Word
says Jesus is God. [John 1:1-3, 14 et al.] Second, He most
certainly is there from the very beginning.
John 1:1-3, 14 (quoted previously), among many, many other places, makes that very painfully clear. In fact, the first prophecy of Jesus Advent is in the famous Protoevangelium, or "First [mention of the] Gospel" is to be found in Genesis 3:15:
This is both grammatically
and physiologically strange, as (first of all) the word for "Seed" is singular,
and (second of all) a woman doesnt have "Seed." This is the first prophecy
the first hint of what God is going to do to rectify the Fall which had
just taken place of the Coming One Who will not be the seed of man but
the Seed of the Woman (He will be born of a virgin by the overshadowing
of God the Holy Spirit). God throughout His Word reveals His Son through
what is called "typology." The entire Temple worship, in fact, is highly
typological pointing to Jesus.
I could literally just reach my hand in and pick a great many examples; but I think three will suffice here.
1) Genesis chapter 22 relates the strange happenings around what the rabbis call the "Akidah." This is when God commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac on Mount Moriah. There are so many types here it becomes truly breathtaking. Among other things, Isaac was not a young child when this occurred. He was most likely around 30. This is significant not only because it is the age that the Hebrew priests were sanctified for service, but also the age when Jesus would begin His public ministry. He willingly submitted to his fathers will, as would Jesus. Isaac was "dead" to Abraham for three days (the time it took to journey to Mt. Moriah); Jesus was three days in the grave. Isaac carried the wood of his sacrifice on his back; Jesus carried the wood of His sacrifice the Cross on His back. Isaac is edited out of the Genesis narrative until he meets his Gentile bride (note that from verse 19 until 24:62 Isaac is not "seen"); that is a type of Jesus ascension to the Father, awaiting His return for His largely Gentile Bride (the Church [Ephesians 5:25-32]).
But the most impressive type is found in verse 14: "And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, In the Mount of the Lord it shall be seen." The truly amazing thing is to understand that Abraham knew he was acting out prophecy. He was acting out a prophecy in type, that would be fulfilled thousands of years later at that exact same spot, as another Father sacrificed His only Son on that hill outside Jerusalem.
2) Seven hundred years before Gods Incarnation of Himself in the little town of Bethlehem, His prophet Isaiah was prophesying the coming destruction and captivity of Israel under the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. After the prophesied event came to pass just as God said it would (how much prophecy is in the Quran again?) the prophet Isaiah began prophesying Gods future restoration of Israel, once His just wrath had been fulfilled. In the middle of this, he began to speak of an Event seven hundred years thence, when One would come to bear the sins of His people:
"Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. Just as many were astonished at you, so His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men; so shall He sprinkle many nations [the concept of "sprinkling" is a Levitical concept of purging someone of sin]. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; for what had not been told them they shall see. And what they had not heard they shall consider. Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to His own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. This is the same One Who Isaiah earlier said would be born of a virgin [7:14] and of Whom he said, "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder. And His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end." [9:6-7]
This is a blatant, obvious prophecy of Jesus Christ seven hundred years before His Incarnation.
3) Perhaps strangest of all is the little-known but breathtaking prophecy "hidden" in the genealogy of Noah in Genesis 5. It really is just a string of Hebrew names Adam begat Seth who begat Enosh who begat Qenan who begat Mahalalel who begat Jared who begat Enoch who begat Methuselah who begat Lamech who begat Noah. Fairly straightforward. Until you realize that Hebrew names mean things. The translation of each name in the genealogy is as follows:
The prophecy becomes crystal clear when you string it all together: "Man [is] appointed mortal sorrow; [but] the Blessed God shall come down teaching His death shall bring the despairing rest."
The ball as they say is in your court. What are you going to do about Him?
May you seek the forgiveness
that is freely offered in Jesus, and may you find His mercy.