Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s article

A Series of Answers to Common Questions

By

 

 

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
According to the Old Testament, the Mosaic Law is something good and holy. Believers are commanded to delight in the Law and meditate upon it. (Cf. Deut. 5:29; 2 Kings 17:37; Psalm 1:2; 119)

 

But according to the apostle Paul, the Law is a curse since Jesus came to redeem man from "the Curse of the Law." (Cf. Gal. 3:13)

 

Christian Reponse:

Paul was not calling the Law a curse, but was speaking about the curse the Law puts on all who fail to follow it wholeheartedly:

 

"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: `Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.' " Galatians 3:10 NIV (quoting from Deut. 27:26)

 

Jesus did not save us from the Law, but from the judgement which falls upon all since none is able to perfectly fulfill all that the Law demands.

Elsewhere, Paul calls the Law holy and good:

 

"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law... So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me, through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate to do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good." Rom. 7:7, 12-16 NIV

 

Those who have been freed from sin through faith in Christ are now empowered to fulfill the moral aspect of the law. The ceremonial aspect such as sacrifices and holy days are fulfilled in Jesus, making only the moral aspects binding on Christians:

 

"Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Rom. 3:31 (Cf. Rom. 8:1-4)

 

 

 

My Response:

 

I could care less to what Paul has to say. Here are some links for Paul:

 

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/coward.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua's.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/12th_apostle.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/attri_part_3.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/word.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm

 

I call on every Christian and Shamoun to go those sites and read what they have to say and then get back to me on Paul.

 

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
According to Paul the resurrection body is spiritual. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44) Yet, in Luke 24:39 Jesus did not have a spiritual body, but a body of "flesh and bones." Furthermore, Paul indicates that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:50) This proves that Jesus did not die and rise from the dead since he did not have a spiritual body.

 

Christian Reponse:
First, Jesus did not say that his body was "flesh and blood" but rather "flesh and bones." Jesus was emphasizing the material aspect of his glorified body, that it was not merely immaterial. Paul's use of the tem "flesh and blood" refers to the corrupt, perishable body we inherit from Adam. (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:49) This body cannot inherit God's kingdom since it is prone to sin and disobedience, and sin cannot dwell in God's presence. (Cf. Psalm 5:4)

 

Secondly, Paul does not say that at the resurrection believers will no longer have material bodies, since he specifically calls it a spiritual body. Paul is contrasting the body conceived in corruption with the body conceived by the Spirit of God:

 

"What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual BODY." 1 Cor. 15:42b-44 NRSV

 

Hence, it is a body that is no longer subject to sin and destruction, but one that is empowered by God's Spirit. That Paul's use of the term spiritual refers to one empowered by the Holy Spirit is evident from the following verses:

 

"The spiritual man makes judgement about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement." 1 Cor. 2:15 NIV

 

"Brothers I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly-mere infants in Christ." 1 Cor. 3:1 NIV

 

"Brothers, if someone is caught in sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently." Galatians 6:1 NIV

 

Therefore, the spiritual body is a body made alive by the Spirit of God:

 

"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." Romans 8:11 NIV

 

Finally, Jesus was not denying his resurrection in Luke 24:39, but denying that he was just a spirit as the disciples thought. In fact, continuing further into the text Jesus affirms his

death and resurrection:

 

"Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, `Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day." Luke 24:45-46 NRSV

 

 

 

 

He wrote: 

Once again I could care less to what Paul has to say.

 

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/coward.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua's.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/12th_apostle.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/attri_part_3.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/word.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/paul.html

 

 

 

He wrote:

4. THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE

 

Most Muslim attacks on the Bible center around the issue of contradictions. Muslims assert that the Bible is full of contradictions, and therefore cannot be trusted. Because of the magnitude of the writings in circulation in support of alleged Bible contradictions, we will not be able to thoroughly address them in this study.

What we will do is give list of books and web sites that specifically deal with the issue of Bible contradictions. We seriously suggest that the reader invest both the time and money into getting a hold of these resources since they will prove to be invaluable in effectively witnessing to Muslims. Some suggested material include the following:

 

BOOKS

When Critics Ask - A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties
Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe
Victor Books, 1992 by SP Publications, Inc.
ISBN: 0-89693-698-8

Hard Sayings Of The Bible
Walter C. Kaiser Jr. & Peter H. Davids & F.F. Bruce & Manfred T. Brauch
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, ILL.
ISBN: 0-8308-1423-X

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Dr. Gleason L. Archer
Zondervan Corporation, 1982, Grand Rapids

True Guidance - 5 Part Series
Light of Life - P.O. BOX 13
A-9503 Villach, Austria
(Note - These series of books were written to refute two Islamic writings against the Bible. One is titled Izhar ul-haqq [The Revelation of the Truth], a book that was written to refute C. C. Pfander's Mizan ul-Haqq. And the other being titled al-Sayf al-Hamidi al-Saqil [The Furbished Hamidi Sword]. Highly recommended.)

 

WEB SITES

Answering Islam <http://www..>
(http://www..)
The most comprehensive web site dealing with Muslim issues. Do a web search for Bible contradictions and you will find some great answers and links to alleged biblical contradictions.

 

Debate Site - 101 Cleared Up Contradictions

 

<http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm>
(

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)
A paper responding to Muslim Apologist Shabir Ally's 101 Clear Contradictions of the Bible. Excellent and scholarly.

A Christian Think Tank <http://christian-thinktank.com/hway.html>
(http://christian-thinktank.com)
A site respected even by atheists. Perhaps the most comprehensive answers ever compiled on Bible difficulties. The answers are based primarily on a superb exegetical understanding of scripture, as well as an amazing knowledge of archaeology. Fantastic.

These are just some of the many resources available for Christians, thoroughly equipping them for the task at hand.

In this section, we will briefly address some of the more common allegations made against the Bible by Muslims.

 

Muslim Argument:
There are 66 books within the canon of the Protestant Bible. Yet the Catholic Bible contains 73. Either one has added or omitted 7 books from the Bible.

 

Christian Reponse:
The 7 books which are included in the Catholic Bible are called the Jewish Apocrypha, literature compiled after the last O.T. book Malachi. These books are not inspired nor are they part of the Hebrew Bible. The Protestants reject these books for the following reasons:

 

1-They were never recognized by the Jews as being part of the canon of scripture since they were not written by inspired men of God. The Talmud states:

 

Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from Israel. (Sanhedrin 11a)

 

This clearly demonstrates that the Jews viewed all the literature written after Malachi as being uninspired. It also affirms that the New Testament picks up where the Old leaves off, since the authors affirmed inspiration for their writings. (Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 5:18- Luke 10:7; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16; Rev. 1:1-3)

In fact, certain books of the Apocrypha flat out deny inspiration. (Cf. 1 Maccabees 9:27) This fact alone is enough to convince someone of the uninspired status of these writings.

 

2-At the Council of Jamnia, A.D. 90, Rabbis headed by Yohannan ben Zakkai acknowledged the 39 books which comprise the present Hebrew and Protestant OT canon as the official Word of God. Everything else was discarded. It should be pointed that this Council did not make the books canonical, but arrived at the conclusion that only these particular books were received throughout the generations as being that which God inspired.

 

3-The Lord Jesus personally affirms the Protestant OT canon. During the time of Christ, the Old Testament was classified into three sections: "The Law," containing the five books of Moses. "The Prophets" which included two subdivisions. The first called "the Former Prophets" and included the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel and Kings. The second is called "the Latter Prophets" which included the books beginning with Isaiah to Ezekiel with the exception of Lamentations; and from Hosea to Malachi. These books were also subsumed into smaller lists such as combining the books from Hosea to Malachi together into one scroll called "the minor Prophets."

The third is "the Writings" or "Psalms." This section consisted first of Psalms, Proverbs and Job; then the "Scrolls" of Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther and finally Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. This gives us a total of 39 OT books, the precise canon of books alluded to by Christ:

 

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44 KJV

 

Jesus affirms the OT division of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms/Writings as being those books which prophesied his coming. No mention of the Apocrypha at all.

 

The 7 books were not officially declared to be part of the Catholic OT canon until the Council of Trent, A.D. 1546. This was primarily in response to the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and their attacks on doctrines such as indulgences. In one of these books, 2 Maccabees 12:46 (Douay), praying for the dead that they may be loosed from sins is commended. Hence, it is not hard to imagine why Catholics would want to include such a book since it supports their doctrine of praying for souls caught in purgatory, something rejected by the Reformers.

 

4-Yet, amazingly, a book which was not included as part of the canon, despite the fact that it also formed part of the Apocrypha literature, is 2 Esdras (4 Esdra by Roman Catholics). This book rejects prayers for the dead. (Cf. 2 Esdra 7:105) The acceptance of 2 Maccabees and the rejection of 2 Esdras affirms the total arbitrariness of the decision behind the choosing of books which supported Catholic doctrine, while rejecting those that did not.

 

5-The Quran acknowledges the canon of the Bible which existed at the time of Muhammad as being the Word of God. (Cf. S. 2:113; 3:79; 10:94) The canon which was in existence at that time were the 39 books of the OT and the 27 N.T. books. These are the books that form the present day canon of the Protestant Bible.

As was indicated, the canon of the OT had been finalized in the latter half of the first century. Whereas the New Testament canon was officially decided upon in the fourth century at the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).

Hence, any books which were added to the Bible after these Councils cannot be accepted as the Word of God. God has given the Church the 66 books of the Protestant Bible to form his infallible rule of Christian faith. This is a fact which the Quran affirms.

 

 

 

He wrote:

 

It is good Shamoun posts Christian websites that are there to answer Bible problems and contradictions. You will see for yourself of what a bad job they are doing and how weak their answers are. You could say all you want to undermine the other 7 books just as much as they could respond back. The fact is that this shows how corrupt your book is with one having 7 less books than the other. The Quran does not acknowledge your Bible as the FULL UNCORRUPTED word of God and that is a sad lie which I will be refuting soon. Here are several links that document the several problems with the so-called word of God, which Christians call the Bible:

 

http://www../library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html

http://www../library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html

http://www../library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html

http://www../library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/numeric.shtml

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm  

http://www.evilbible.com/absurd%20torah%20science.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels_rebuttal.htm

http://www.muslimtents.com/gloriousislam/is_the_bible_corrupted.htm

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/criticaltext.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/original.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/modappr.html

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/criteria.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/BibleTex.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/Embryo/BiblecopyGreek.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/abrogate.html

http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Novscript2y3.html

 

I call on Christians to read all those links and then get back to me on whether you actually you believe your book is the un CORRUPTED word of God.

 

 

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
There is no reference in the Bible itself where it indicates that the book canonized by the Jews and Christians would be called the Bible. The word "Bible" never appears in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. This is a man-made title.

 

Christian Reponse:

The term Bible is derived through Latin from the Greek term biblia (books). The earliest extra-biblical usage of the term is found in 2 Clement 14:2 (A.D. 150): "the books (ta biblia) and the apostles declare that the church ... has existed from the beginning."

Biblia is the plural form of the Greek biblion, which is itself a diminutive of biblos. These terms are used in Scripture as designations for inspired writings:

 

"And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book (en to biblio touto)." John 20:30 NKJV

 

"For it is written in the Book (biblo) of Psalms..." Acts 1:20 NKJV

 

"Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets (en biblo ton propheton)..." Acts 7:42 NKJV

 

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under curse; for it is written, `Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law (en to biblio tou nomou), to do them" Gal. 3:10 NKJV

 

"When you come, bring the cloak I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books (kai ta biblia), especially the parchments (malista tas membranas)." 2 Tim. 4:13

 

Paul identifies the inspired writings as the biblia, the books, which at that time included both the Old Testament scrolls as well as the Gospel of Luke. (Cf. 1 Tim. 5:18-Luke 10:7 see below)

 

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, "What you see, write in a book (graphon heis biblion) and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia..." Rev. 1:10-11

 

"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book (tes propheteias tou bibliou): If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book (en tou biblio); and if anyone takes away words of the book of this prophecy (tou bibliou tes propheteias), God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (en to biblio touto)." Rev. 22:18-19

 

These verses indicate that the term from which the word "Bible" is derived is indeed found within sacred scripture itself. Hence, the word used for the Judeo-Christian Scripture is not something which was arbitrarily decided upon, but something derived from the inspired writings.

(

(Note - This same phenomena is also true of the Quran. Although the word "Quran" appears in the Islamic scripture, nowhere will one find a verse indicating how many chapters make up the Quran or whether the book itself should be thus named.

In fact, some Muslims such as Ubayy b. Kabb, called the Master of the Quranic reciters, had 116 chapters in his text of the Quran; while others such as Abdallah Ibn Masud included only 111 out of the present 114 chapters of the Islamic text.

Furthermore, early Islamic sources indicate that there was even disagreement among the companions of Muhammad as to what name should be given to the codified recitation:

 

"Once the Quran had been compiled, people wondered what to call it. Some suggested calling it Sifir (`the Book'), but Ali refused, because that is a Hebrew word. Later, Ali said: `I saw one like it in Abyssinia called Al-Mushaf'; so this is what it was called." [True Guidance, pt. 4, p. 51; citing Muhammad Izzat Darwaza's al-Quran al-Majid, p. 53])

 

 

My Response:

 

Unlike your Bible the word Quran is in the Quran. They could have thought of a name to call it, but fact is it was always called the Quran. In the Quran itself it says the Quran has been revealed to Muhammad, hence revelations Muhammad received were part of the QURAN. So it does not matter if the Quran does not mention how many verses there are in the book, but it does mention its name, which is called the Quran.

 

 

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
Ezekiel 23:20-21 uses what seems to be pornographic language. God speaks of Judah and Samaria lusting for Egypt whose genitals is likened to donkeys, and whose emission is like horses. How can the Bible attribute such words to God?

 

Christian Reponse:
God is likening Judah's and Samaria's devotion to foreign gods to sexual perversion. God addresses the two as sisters who commit adultery by pursuing foreign nations, abandoning their Husband. Hence, idolatry is viewed as committing spiritual adultery in the eyes of God. This is obviously metaphorical language, and is not meant to be taken literally.

(Note - The Quran uses similar language in describing the pleasures of Paradise. For instance, Muslims will be given virgin maidens with "swelling breasts" [Arabic - kawaa-iba] to enjoy for all eternity. [S. 78:33 Rodwell and Arberry translation])

 

My Response:

 

Whether to be taken literally or not it is indeed pornographic language.  I think many will find this Christian site very interesting:

 

http://www.sexinchrist.com/ 

 

Let us now look at the so-called pornographic language of the Quran. Surah 78:33:

YUSUFALI: And voluptuous women of equal age;

PICKTHAL: And voluptuous women of equal age;

SHAKIR: And voluptuous women of equal age;

 

Now tell me how does a verse talking about the pleasure of paradise of maidens with swelling breasts compare to: God speaks of Judah and Samaria lusting for Egypt whose genitals is likened to donkeys, and whose emission is like horses(Ezekiel 23:20-21)

 

Very funny, they don’t even come close. First of all the Quran is simply discussing the delight of paradise, nothing pornographic there but it is discussing some thing that will happen. It is giving explanations of how it will be in heaven and the pleasures you get. Nothing pornographic they’re at all. You could easily explain this to a kid and tell them beautiful women and when they are old enough you could tell them swelling breasts. However so what possible explanation could you give a kid on Ezekiel 23:20-21, what possibly could you say. 'Oh son this verse is about women who want men who have lower parts of a similar sort to donkeys.

 

Then what will you explain on the horse? I will be waiting till a Christian gives me a reasonable explanation of how I could tell that verse to a kid.

 

 

He wrote:

 

Muslim Argument:
The Bible degrades women, blaming Eve for the fall. Furthermore, it commands women to remain silent in the churches and not to usurp authority over the man.

Women are also to have their hair covered as a sign of submission to their husbands. (Cf. 1 Timothy 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:5-10, 13; 14:34)

 

Christian Response:

Although the Bible does blame Eve, it also blames Adam. In fact, God blames both Adam and Eve and curses them accordingly. (Cf. Gen. 3:16-20)

 

Secondly, just as Eve is singled out for the fall, elsewhere in the Bible Adam is held personally accountable. (Cf. Hos. 6:7; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-49)

 

Thirdly, Paul's command that women should have their heads covered was not a sign of humiliation, but of respect. A woman who either had her head shaved or uncovered was considered to be immoral and rebellious, especially if she had a husband. In order to protect both the reputation of the believing women and the Church, Paul commanded head coverings. In this way, no unbeliever could ever bring an accusation that believing women were immoral and rebellious.

 

Fourthly, although women are told not to usurp authority over men in the church, they still were allowed to prophecy as noted in 1 Cor. 11:5. Paul's point in women remaining silent must be understood to mean that they are not to speak authoritatively over men, since this was culturally unacceptable.

 

Fifthly, the Bible states that both women and men are created in God `s image. (Cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1) Woman is called "the mother of all the living." (Cf. Gen. 3:20) In fact, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

 

Sixthly, men are commanded to view their wives as their own bodies, caring for them as Christ cared enough for the Church to die for her. Husbands must be also willing to do likewise. (Cf. Eph. 5:25-33) In fact, Paul demands that husbands view their bodies as not belonging to themselves but to their wives and vice-versa, and must not deny the others' needs. (Cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-5)

 

Furthermore, the Bible mentions women who were used by God as prophets and leaders such as Miriam (Exodus 15:20; Micah 6:4), Deborah (Judges 4-5), Anna (Luke 2:36), the four daughters of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:9), and a number of others. (Cf. Judges 4:4; Isaiah 8:3)

 

All these factors demonstrate that whereas there is a positional subjection on the part of women in the structure of the Church, this in no way assumes that they are inferior. In fact, they are given an honor lacking in any other religion.

(Note - The Quran states that women are inferior to men, since God made man superior. [Cf. 2:28; 4:34] In fact, the Quran encourages men to deny disobedient wives sex as a form of punishment, and beat them if they persist in disobedience. [Cf. 4:34])

 

 

My Response:

This topic has already been dealt with here (*).

 

 

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
Christians presume inspiration of all the books of the Bible. Yet, there are places where inspiration is seemingly denied. For instance, Luke affirms in Luke 1:1-4 that it "seemed good also to me to write an orderly account that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." No mention of inspiration!

In 1 Corinthians 7:12 Paul writes, "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)..." Again in 1 Corinthians 7:25 Paul states, "Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord..." Paul denies inspiration.

Another place where Paul denies inspiration is at Romans 3:7 where he affirms that he is speaking falsehood.

 

Christian Response:

In regards to Luke 1:1-4, nowhere does Luke deny inspiration, and hence this is an argument from silence. Inspiration does not preclude careful investigation of historical material. Rather, inspiration entails the Holy Spirit guiding the authors to record God's words without error. Therefore, Luke was guided to carefully investigate and include material that was without error and which the Holy Spirit wanted to be written.

Furthermore, Paul writes that "All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)." (Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16.) Paul includes Luke's writings as part of those Scriptures which are God-breathed:

 

"For the Scripture says, `Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain', and `The worker deserves his wages.'" 1 Tim. 5:18 NIV

 

Paul's first citation is from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second is from Luke 10:7:

 

"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house." NIV

 

Not only is Luke's writing inspired Scripture, but it is also placed on the same level of authority as Moses' writings.

Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25 are not a denial of inspiration. Rather, they constitute an acknowledgment that the Lord, while on earth, has given no commands to the disciples in regards to these particular issues. Therefore, Paul gave "judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." 1 Cor. 7:25

 

Being guided by the Holy Spirit, Paul could speak authoritatively and infallibly on matters not addressed by Christ while on earth. This is precisely what Paul goes on to say at the conclusion of his discussion:

 

"In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is - and I think that I too have the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. 7:40 NIV

 

Hence, Paul knows that what he says is true since it is the Spirit who is speaking through him.

The apostle Peter says of Paul:

 

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 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." 2 Peter 3:15-16 NIV

 

Peter affirms that Paul wrote with the wisdom which God gave him, placing his writings on the same level of authority as other inspired writings.

Paul himself affirms that it is by the wisdom given to him by God's Holy Spirit which enables him to both proclaim and write infallibly:

 

"This is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." 1 Cor. 2:13 NIV

 

In Romans 3:7, Paul is not claiming to be speaking falsely. That is a gross misquotation of what Paul was actually saying. Paul was speaking of God's justice and how man's unrighteousness affirms that God's judgment upon sinners is righteous. Hence, Paul is speaking hypothetically of one who might ask if by a person's falsehood God is proven righteous, why then does God condemn the person? This becomes crystal clear from the text itself:

 

"But if our righteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, `If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say - as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say - `Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved." Romans 3:5-8

 

 

 

 

My Response:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/coward.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua's.htm  

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/12th_apostle.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/attri_part_3.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/word.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/paul.html

 

 

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
According to 2 Samuel 24:1. God moved David to number the fighting men of Israel, whereas according to 1 Chronicles 21:1 it was Satan who moved David to do so.

 

Christian Response:
There is no difficulty at all with these passages, since God allowed Satan to incite David to number Israel, something which displeased the Lord.

The reason why this angered the Lord is that rather than trusting God, David was evidently placing his trust in the number of his people. Even David's commander-in-chief, Joab, was not totally pleased with the king's decision:

 

"But Joab said to the king, `May the LORD your God increase the number of the people a hundred fold, while the eyes of my lord king can still see it! But why does my lord the king want to do this? But the king's word prevailed against Joab and the commanders of the army..." 2 Sam. 24:3-4a NRSV

 

Evidently, David had purposed within his heart to number Israel, something which the Lord was aware of. Realizing this, the Lord in his anger moved David through the agency of the Devil to act upon his heart's desire.

Hence, although Satan was the direct cause, God was also indirectly responsible since the Devil can only do that which God allows him to do.

 

(Note - This is a teaching which the Quran wholeheartedly agrees with, that the devils can only do what Allah allows them to do:

 

"Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy - Satans among men and Jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so willed they would not have done it: so leave them and what they forge." S. 6:112 A.Y. Ali

"Seest thou not that We have set Satans on against the unbelievers, to incite them to fury?" S. 19:83 A.Y. Ali

 

Muslim commentator al-Zamakhshari's note on S. 2:7 is noteworthy:

 

"It is now in reality Satan or the unbeliever who has sealed the heart. However, since it is God who has granted him the ability and possibility to do it, the sealing is ascribed to him in the same sense as an act which he has caused. [John Gilchrist, The Textual History of the Qur`an and the Bible, p.37, Light of Life, P.O. Box 13 A - 9503 VILLACH, AUATRIA])

 

This finishes our defense of the Gospel. We pray that the Lord Jesus Christ will bless everyone who studies and applies the information to win others to glory.

AMEN

 

 

 

My Response: 

That is the worst explanation and playing of texts I have ever seen! I told you Christian responses to Bible contradictions are very bad. Shamoun tries to clear this mess up by claiming ah yes it was Satan who moved David, yet it was God because God is in control of all things and the devils and everything do what he wills them to do so hence it is really him doing it: Hence, although Satan was the direct cause, God was also indirectly responsible since the Devil can only do that which God allows him to do.

 

Although what Shamoun says is true about beings doing things only if God allows them to do so. However so when reading the text it becomes apparent that Shamoun's explanation comes nowhere close to what the text says.

 

In 2 Samuel 24:1 the text is clear that it was DIRECTLY God who moved David, and in 1 Chronicles 21:1 the text is clear that it was DIRECTLY satan who moved David. So basically the text of 2 Samuel shows that it was God who directly moved David and not Satan with God in directly moving David. Let us quote both verses:

1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah

 

The text in fact shows God DIRECTLY moving David, AND HE, he is God, so basically GOD moved David directly. Now 1 Chronicles 21:1:

1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel

 

Here the text shows Satan DIRECTLY moving David. Hence Shamoun's weak explanation does not cut it. The text does not support his case at all.

This ends the rebuttal to his supposed weak attempt of defending the Gospel, which he clearly failed to do. The Muslim arguments still stand and the Gospel is still wrong.

AMEEN