Search Results : Trin­i­ty

Philo­soph­i­cal the­ism, in con­tem­po­rary times, has been dom­i­nat­ed by philoso­phers who are Chris­tians. These the­is­tic philoso­phers have pub­lished a great amount of lit­er­a­ture defend­ing the ratio­nal­i­ty of belief in God, and any par­tic­i­pant in the great debate will sure­ly be famil­iar with the names of intel­lec­tu­al giants like Alvin Planti­nga, Richard Swin­burne, William Lane Craig, among many oth­ers. Swin­burne, for exam­ple, gives the­is­tic belief, and in par­tic­u­lar Chris­t­ian belief, philo­soph­i­cal treat­ment in toto. I have noticed the fol­low­ing pro­gres­sion in his case for Chris­tian­i­ty. First, he argues that the notion of ​‘God-talk’ is per­fect­ly coher­ent, and there are no a pri­ori rea­sons to reject the­is­tic belief. Next, he argues on cumu­la­tive grounds that nat­ur­al the­ol­o­gy ren­ders the exis­tence of God more prob­a­ble than not. Final­ly, Swin­burne artic­u­lates var­i­ous argu­ments for Chris­t­ian par­tic­u­lar­ism, e.g. rea­sons to believe in the Chris­t­ian Rev­e­la­tion, the Res­ur­rec­tion of Christ, etc. He there­fore epit­o­mizes the clas­sic Lock­ean evi­den­tial­ist, who is pre­pared to give ratio­nal rea­sons for all his beliefs.

Recent­ly we were intro­duced to a new, amus­ing polemic by the mis­sion­ar­ies, name­ly with regard to the word ​“ahad(un)”. To achieve this end, the mis­sion­ar­ies cite an online text from a Chris­t­ian Arab polemi­cist who claims that the word does not mean ​“one”, but ​“one of”. Is it true what they claim ? We seek to answer this alle­ga­tion in the fol­low­ing, insha’allah.

Recent­ly I came across email exchanges that took place between Jalal Abualrab and the Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary Sam Shamoun. I have heard that the mis­sion­ary Shamoun is a very abu­sive, mali­cious and nasty indi­vid­ual, con­stant­ly mock­ing and abus­ing Islam as his hob­by. After read­ing the mail exchanges, it became clear to me that this mis­sion­ary is indeed a very arro­gant and abu­sive per­son. I was sur­prised to see that Katz, who gen­er­al­ly main­tains a polite tone, did not say a word to con­demn Shamoun’s abu­sive behav­iour. In this paper I would like to com­ment upon the dis­cus­sion and offer my own per­spec­tive, views and obser­va­tions as a reader.

The book ​“Mis­quot­ing Jesus : The Sto­ry Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why” from Prof. Bart Ehrman can be described as an intro­duc­tion to New Tes­ta­ment tex­tu­al crit­i­cism for begin­ners, in which he explains the sub­ject in the con­text of his own back­ground, relat­ing his jour­ney from being an Evan­gel­i­cal Chris­t­ian to becom­ing a world renowned New Tes­ta­ment schol­ar. Besides D. C. Park­er’s ​“Liv­ing Text of the Gospels”, Ehrman’s ​“Mis­quot­ing Jesus” seems to be the only book on tex­tu­al crit­i­cism designed specif­i­cal­ly for the non-expert readers.

TRINITY Basic claim is that the Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost are equal­ly one — and are all GOD There­fore, Jesus IS God. CRUCIFIXION Chris­tians believe that…

The most uni­ver­sal­ly rec­og­nized sym­bol of Jerusalem is not a Jew­ish or Chris­t­ian holy place but a Mus­lim one : the Dome of the Rock, or Qub­bat as-Sakhra as it is known in Ara­bic. When peo­ple see its gold­en dome ris­ing above the open expanse of Haram as-Sha­reef, they think of only one place in the world. The Dome of the Rock is undoubt­ed­ly one of the most cel­e­brat­ed and most remark­able mon­u­ments of ear­ly Islam, vis­it­ed every year by thou­sands of pil­grims and tourists. It is Jerusalem’s answer to Paris’ Eif­fel Tow­er, Rome’s St. Peter’s Square, Lon­don’s Big Ben and Kuala Lumpur’s Petronas twin tow­ers ; daz­zling the minds of Mus­lims and non-Mus­lims alike. The Dome of the Rock is Jerusalem.

The Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies are well-known for their decep­tion in order to spread their so-called ​“God-giv­en” pur­pose to spread the Gospel to the world. This approach is not alien to the mis­sion­ary agen­da, for it is found­ed upon the very words of Paul, who laid down decep­tion as the mis­sion­ary approach. It is with this ​“mis­sion” in mind that they have start­ed to infil­trate coun­tries where the major­i­ty of Mus­lims do not habit­u­al­ly read or speak Ara­bic. The mis­sion­ar­ies have begun sell­ing images which mir­rors the cal­lig­ra­phy often found in Qur’an­ic vers­es, but instead of the usu­al Qur’an­ic vers­es, they cite vers­es from the Ara­bic Bible instead. This tru­ly dis­plays the decep­tion of the mis­sion­ar­ies in order to dupe gullible Mus­lims to their cause.

From a tape lec­ture of the same title, Les­son 66. Edit­ed by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi Let us first dis­cuss some of the new ways…

Tera Tak Adamar & Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi The mis­sion­ary Sam Shamoun under the ban­ner of the infa­mous mis­sion­ary web­site, Answer­ing Islam, have claimed in…

Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi In I Kings 8:27, we read that : But will God indeed dwell on the earth ? behold, the heav­en and heav­en of heavens…

Before 1881, all trans­la­tions of the New Tes­ta­ment (includ­ing, most impor­tant­ly, the 1611 King James Ver­sion (KJV), also known as the Autho­rised Ver­sion (AV)), were based on copies of Greek man­u­scripts known as the Tex­tus Recep­tus, which is Latin for Received Text. (Abbre­vi­at­ed to TR). But in the 19th and 20th cen­turies, old­er Greek man­u­scripts were dis­cov­ered. These man­u­scripts have caused Bible schol­ars to revise what they believe is the cor­rect text of the New Tes­ta­ment. The lat­est revi­sion of this Greek Text is the Unit­ed Bible Soci­eties’ ​‘The Greek New Tes­ta­ment’ (pub­lished by Unit­ed Bible Soci­eties, 4th Edi­tion, 1993); (which I will abbre­vi­ate as UBS4). The suc­ces­sive revi­sions of the UBS New Tes­ta­ment are wide­ly accept­ed in the field of Bib­li­cal Stud­ies, and have been used for mod­ern trans­la­tions such as the Revised Stan­dard Ver­sion (RSV), New Inter­na­tion­al Ver­sion (NIV) and New Revised Stan­dard Ver­sion (NRSV).

The strongest ​“evi­dence” for the Trin­i­ty in the Bible is the verse 1 John 5:7 or oth­er­wise known as the ​‘Johan­nine Com­ma’. Unfor­tu­nate­ly for…

Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi Three hun­dred years after the time of Jesus(P), there were many dif­fer­ent ver­sions of the Gospel sto­ry and the teach­ings of…

Surat-ul-Tau­ba which is the 9th Chap­ter of the Qur’an was revealed 15 months before the Prophet’s(P) demise. Before its rev­e­la­tion, Mus­lims used to fol­low a very wise pol­i­cy, that is ​“If they charge thee with false­hood, say : my work to me, and yours to you ye are free from respon­si­bil­i­ty for what I do, and I for what ye do!” (Holy Qur’an 10:41). But the poly­the­ists were not sat­is­fied with this pol­i­cy and they did not refrain from treach­er­ous acts against Mus­lims, that was why the com­mand to pun­ish these groups came, and this is the dis­charge from God and His Apos­tle. Mis­sion­ar­ies con­cen­trate upon a piece of verse and ignore the rest of the passage.

When the Evan­ge­list becomes a Shaikh, the angels become poly­the­ists, wor­ship­ping Adam instead of Allah. When the Evan­ge­list becomes a Shaikh, the Nasikh becomes Man­sukh, the Mut­laq becomes Muqayyad and the ​‘Aamm becomes Makhsus, and vice-ver­sa. Not that it is not hilar­i­ous to read for Evan­ge­lists-turned-Shaikhs. It is at the dis­cov­ery of the lev­el of hor­rif­ic con­fu­sion and plain errors con­tained in the ​“fatawa” of the many Evangelists/​Shaikhs who sprung up in recent years that inten­si­fies one’s amaze­ment and baf­fle­ment, espe­cial­ly not­ing the lev­el of pub­lic­i­ty the writ­ings of the new Shaikhs receive in the west­ern media.