Why Do Muslims Have Problems With Paul?

[exoflare]

One Muslim friend of mine actually asked me one time (in one of those not-too-well-concealed “trying to refute your religion” moments) whether the Christian religion wasn’t “actually started by Paul 300 or 400 years later?” I was too busy trying to keep from cracking up to go through all the reasons why that is so ridiculous. God only knows what else they’re teaching them in those mosques…

 

[freedomm]

Dear murtad:

After reading your “replies” all I can say to you is “May Allah show you th right path”.

Throughout history, there have been a number of Christian scholars who have come to recognize the truth of the prophesy of Jesus (pbuh) and that it originally referred to prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Anselm Turmeda (1352 -1423), a poet, writer and Christian scholar was one such person. After recognizing the last prophet of God and embracing Islam he wrote a famous book titled "Tuhfat al-arib fi al-radd 'ala Ahl al-Salib." In the introduction to this work he relates his history:

"Let it be known to all of you that my origin is from the city of Majorca*, which is a great city on the sea, between two mountains and divided by a small valley. It is a commercial city, with two wonderful harbours. Big merchant ships come and anchor in the harbour with different goods. The city is on the island which has the same name - Majorca, and most of its land is populated with fig and olive trees. My father was a well respected man in the city. I was his only son. When I was six, he sent me to a priest who taught me to read the Gospel and logic, which I finished in six years. …

Details:thetruereligion.org/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=243

• • • • -

 

[inJESUS]

freedomm:

Dear murtad:

After reading your “replies” all I can say to you is “May Allah show you th right path”.

Throughout history, there have been a number of Christian scholars who have come to recognize the truth of the prophesy of Jesus (pbuh) and that it originally referred to prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Anselm Turmeda (1352 -1423), a poet, writer and Christian scholar was one such person. After recognizing the last prophet of God and embracing Islam he wrote a famous book titled "Tuhfat al-arib fi al-radd 'ala Ahl al-Salib." In the introduction to this work he relates his history:

"Let it be known to all of you that my origin is from the city of Majorca*, which is a great city on the sea, between two mountains and divided by a small valley. It is a commercial city, with two wonderful harbours. Big merchant ships come and anchor in the harbour with different goods. The city is on the island which has the same name - Majorca, and most of its land is populated with fig and olive trees. My father was a well respected man in the city. I was his only son. When I was six, he sent me to a priest who taught me to read the Gospel and logic, which I finished in six years. …

Details:thetruereligion.org/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=243

• • • • -

freedom, why do you repeat the same posts everywhere? do you want some nice articles about muslims who converted to Christianity, calling mohammad wih the worst names ? of course not…you point out of such threads is??

 

[murtad]

Reuben J:

Thanks for the articles. There are some useful arguments about Paul not contradicting Jesus. And the writer concludes with this:

Reuben,

These articles are excellent as they show us that the apostle Paul can never contradict our Lord Jesus because both of them were “rabbis” who understood Halakha, the Jewish law very well.

In the time of our Lord, there were two Gospels, the Gospel of the Christ (so-called the “New Testament” - the Christian Talmud) and the Gospel of the Pharisees (so-called the “Babylonian Talmud” - Qur’an). Our Lord refered the Pharisees as the children of the devil because they did not wait for the Messiah to interpret Torah for them but went ahead and misinterpreted Torah, making false Halakha.
Reuben J:

**Are the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul in harmony with one another? We believe they are. Are these teachings inconsistent with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures? We believe they are not. - Avi Snyder, the European Director of Jews for Jesus. **

Look like to me Muslims’ problems with Paul has been nicely solved.

Reuben,

Both our Lord Jesus and His apostle Paul did not abolish the Torah but fulfiled it as the Cathecism of Catholic Church (CCC) teaches us. To fulfil means to explain. Paul was explaining the correct meaning of Torah (that is the Old Testament) and showing how wrong the Pharisees were.

Islamists being Pharisees love to lie! They lie that we Christians abolished Torah but it is they, who through their Quran (which is a plagarisation from the Babylonian Talmud) abolish the Torah. This is why our Lord Jesus called the Pharisees children of devil for they make the Law of Moses null and void by misinterpreting it with false Halakha.

 

[murtad]

Reuben J:

Surely the finding **that all ancient manuscripts written in the original Aramaic or Hebrew were utterly destroyed ** is out of the blue of the deepest ocean. I know this is the high point of Muslims’ contention – that Jesus wrote the injeel. There has never any evidence or sayings even among the early followers of Jesus that such ‘injeel’ exist. The only injeel there were, are the Gospels. But I would like to challenge you, if I may, to proof to us there is such injeel of Jesus and what it looks (reads) like.

Reuben,

When you say “that all ancient manuscripts written in the original Aramaic or Hebrew were utterly destroyed”, I feel this is incorrect as there was no original Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel.

Our Lord Jesus spoke Koine Greek, a Semitic Expression of Greek. Koine Greek is like Yiddish as it has many loan words from Hebrew or Aramaic. This Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the East Roman or Byzantine Empire, especially the land of Palestine. This was due to the conquest of the East by Alexander the Great. The Jewish people translated the Old Testament into Greek and this translation is called LXX or Septuagint.

Our Lord Jesus quoted extensively from the LXX version of the Old Testament and not the Hebrew version.

The easiest way to discover the language of our Lord is by checking the Old Testament verses he quoted during Torah discussions he had with the Saducees and the Pharisees. You will note that Jesus had only three choices of Old Testament text to quote from :

1. LXX / Septuagint ( Saducee Text )
2. Dead Sea Scrolls ( Essene Text )
3. Masoretic Text ( Pharisee Text )

Since Hebrew was a dead language, dead as a dodo until it was revived in 1948 C.E., it is unlikely our Lord Jesus spoke Hebrew in the 1st century C.E. He could have spoken only Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Roman-Byzantine Empire.

So, we have no choice but to conclude that our Lord and His Apostle Paul used the LXX. In fact, Catholic Church accepts the LXX as the authoritative Bible. It was the Protestant revolt led by Martin Luther that changed the canon from Greek to Hebrew when he expunged the deuterocanonical books.

This is why the New Testament is revealed in the Greek text, not Aramaic text.

This is my 2 cents. Feel free to tell me your reactions, whether positive or negative. Do you agree that our Lord spoke Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament and the East Roman Byzantine Empire?

 

[Reuben_J]

exoflare:

One Muslim friend of mine actually asked me one time (in one of those not-too-well-concealed “trying to refute your religion” moments) whether the Christian religion wasn’t “actually started by Paul 300 or 400 years later?” I was too busy trying to keep from cracking up to go through all the reasons why that is so ridiculous. God only knows what else they’re teaching them in those mosques…

Goodness, what fantastic sense of history! But are they really ignorant of such dates? Absolutely not! What’s disturbing is this deliberate attempt to mislead. That makes me thinking that if a religion stands on false premises and assumptions of other religions, then what credibility that religion has?

 

[Reuben_J]

murtad:

Reuben,

When you say “that all ancient manuscripts written in the original Aramaic or Hebrew were utterly destroyed”, I feel this is incorrect as there was no original Aramaic or Hebrew Gospel.

Correction. I didn’t say that. I was merely paraphrasing jcaz. That’s why I rebutt this idea.

 

[Reuben_J]

murtad:

Reuben,

Our Lord Jesus spoke Koine Greek, a Semitic Expression of Greek. Koine Greek is like Yiddish as it has many loan words from Hebrew or Aramaic. This Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the East Roman or Byzantine Empire, especially the land of Palestine. This was due to the conquest of the East by Alexander the Great. The Jewish people translated the Old Testament into Greek and this translation is called LXX or Septuagint.

Our Lord Jesus quoted extensively from the LXX version of the Old Testament and not the Hebrew version.

The easiest way to discover the language of our Lord is by checking the Old Testament verses he quoted during Torah discussions he had with the Saducees and the Pharisees. You will note that Jesus had only three choices of Old Testament text to quote from :

1. LXX / Septuagint ( Saducee Text )
2. Dead Sea Scrolls ( Essene Text )
3. Masoretic Text ( Pharisee Text )

Since Hebrew was a dead language, dead as a dodo until it was revived in 1948 C.E., it is unlikely our Lord Jesus spoke Hebrew in the 1st century C.E. He could have spoken only Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Roman-Byzantine Empire.

So, we have no choice but to conclude that our Lord and His Apostle Paul used the LXX. In fact, Catholic Church accepts the LXX as the authoritative Bible. It was the Protestant revolt led by Martin Luther that changed the canon from Greek to Hebrew when he expunged the deuterocanonical books.

This is why the New Testament is revealed in the Greek text, not Aramaic text.

This is my 2 cents. Feel free to tell me your reactions, whether positive or negative. Do you agree that our Lord spoke Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament and the East Roman Byzantine Empire?

Well, first of all I must say that your idea of Christian’s doctrine is very unconventional. I’ve been reading some of your posts and they are not what we normally say. Even about the Muslims. We don’t call them Pharisees. But you been defending us, and I thank you for that. Just want to set the record straight.

Aramaic is the language spoken by Jesus during his days and Greek is the langua franca, much like English today. Thus it is not surprising that the Gospel was written in Greek. Of course Jesus might speak Greek too, like how people of today speak English to go by.

Muslims make big deal about the NT not being written in Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus. But I guess they base this assesment on the standard that they apply to the Quran. Quran, as I said, is word for word verbatim from the angel Gabriel, while NT is narration by Jesus’ followers who as his witnesses were proclaiming the message of Jesus.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

jcaz’s version of the history of Christianity after the death of Jesus, is the most ignorant and ridiculous thing I have ever read.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the original gospels were destroyed by 4th century Christians and replaced by trinitarian gospels. If Muslims believe this ****, and that’s what it is: PURE ****, then they are seriously deluded people.
Pray for them.

Jaypeeto3

 

[Booklover]

Reuben J:

Goodness, what fantastic sense of history! But are they really ignorant of such dates? Absolutely not! What’s disturbing is this deliberate attempt to mislead. That makes me thinking that if a religion stands on false premises and assumptions of other religions, then what credibility that religion has?

IMHO absolutely none!:twocents:

'Vickie

 

[inJESUS]

murtad:

Reuben,

Both our Lord Jesus and His apostle Paul did not abolish the Torah but fulfiled it as the Cathecism of Catholic Church (CCC) teaches us. To fulfil means to explain. Paul was explaining the correct meaning of Torah (that is the Old Testament) and showing how wrong the Pharisees were.

Islamists being Pharisees love to lie! They lie that we Christians abolished Torah but it is they, who through their Quran (which is a plagarisation from the Babylonian Talmud) abolish the Torah. This is why our Lord Jesus called the Pharisees children of devil for they make the Law of Moses null and void by misinterpreting it with false Halakha.

quran never adresses us as Christians but as Nasara thou the word “Christians” was there since the first century…the nasara are a bunch of jews (pharisee maybe?) who believed in Jesus as messiah but who deviated later by the influence of ebionism and other heresies and to which the Apostles called as false teachers and heretics…these heretics ended up in hijaz & mecca and became known as muslims and we find no more traces about them cuz they merged in what is called now islam…a bit of history about their doctrines reveal that they ended up in quran.

 

[inJESUS]

murtad:

Reuben,

Both our Lord Jesus and His apostle Paul did not abolish the Torah but fulfiled it as the Cathecism of Catholic Church (CCC) teaches us. To fulfil means to explain. Paul was explaining the correct meaning of Torah (that is the Old Testament) and showing how wrong the Pharisees were.

Islamists being Pharisees love to lie! They lie that we Christians abolished Torah but it is they, who through their Quran (which is a plagarisation from the Babylonian Talmud) abolish the Torah. This is why our Lord Jesus called the Pharisees children of devil for they make the Law of Moses null and void by misinterpreting it with false Halakha.

quran never adresses us as Christians but as Nasara thou the word “Christians” was there since the first century…the nasara are a bunch of jews (pharisee maybe?) who believed in Jesus as messiah and Son of God but who deviated later by the influence of ebionism and other heresies and to which the Apostles called as false teachers and heretics…these heretics ended up in hijaz & mecca and became known as muslims and we find no more traces about them cuz they merged in what is called now islam…a bit of history about their doctrines reveal that they ended up in quran.

 

[inJESUS]

murtad:

Reuben,

Both our Lord Jesus and His apostle Paul did not abolish the Torah but fulfiled it as the Cathecism of Catholic Church (CCC) teaches us. To fulfil means to explain. Paul was explaining the correct meaning of Torah (that is the Old Testament) and showing how wrong the Pharisees were.

Islamists being Pharisees love to lie! They lie that we Christians abolished Torah but it is they, who through their Quran (which is a plagarisation from the Babylonian Talmud) abolish the Torah. This is why our Lord Jesus called the Pharisees children of devil for they make the Law of Moses null and void by misinterpreting it with false Halakha.

quran never adresses us as Christians but as Nasara thou the word “Christians” was there since the first century…the nasara are a bunch of jews (pharisee maybe?) who believed in Jesus as messiah and Son of God but who deviated later by the influence of ebionism and other heresies and whom the Apostles called as false teachers and heretics…these heretics ended up in hijaz & mecca and became known as muslims and we find no more traces about them cuz they merged in what is called now islam…a bit of history about their doctrines reveal that they ended up in quran.

 

[inJESUS]

murtad:

Reuben,

Both our Lord Jesus and His apostle Paul did not abolish the Torah but fulfiled it as the Cathecism of Catholic Church (CCC) teaches us. To fulfil means to explain. Paul was explaining the correct meaning of Torah (that is the Old Testament) and showing how wrong the Pharisees were.

Islamists being Pharisees love to lie! They lie that we Christians abolished Torah but it is they, who through their Quran (which is a plagarisation from the Babylonian Talmud) abolish the Torah. This is why our Lord Jesus called the Pharisees children of devil for they make the Law of Moses null and void by misinterpreting it with false Halakha.

quran never adresses us as Christians but as Nasara thou the word “Christians” was there since the first century…the nasara are a bunch of jews (pharisee maybe?) who believed in Jesus as messiah and Son of God but who deviated later by the influence of ebionism and other heresies and whom the Apostles called as false teachers and heretics…these heretics ended up in hijaz & mecca and became known as muslims and we find no more traces about them cuz they merged in what is called now islam…a bit of history about their doctrines reveal that they ended up the same in quran.

 

[exoflare]

Reuben J:

Goodness, what fantastic sense of history! But are they really ignorant of such dates? Absolutely not! What’s disturbing is this deliberate attempt to mislead. That makes me thinking that if a religion stands on false premises and assumptions of other religions, then what credibility that religion has?

Exactly, and he’s not even a terribly religious Muslim at that. Like the vast majority of Muslims, however, he still has a huge amount of personal/societal pride invested in the religion he has been raised with since birth. He used to bring up these things a lot more with me… now he kind of starts to get nervous whenever I start to respond.

That is what bothers me about so many Muslims I’ve talked to, though. It’s just like you said… they don’t even seem to notice when their credibility has already been shot by making such ridiculous accusations. You still have to put up with all the constant attempts to destroy your own beliefs as they blindly fire insult after insult hoping that eventually they’ll hit a bull’s-eye.

 

[Reuben_J]

Jaypeeto3:

jcaz’s version of the history of Christianity after the death of Jesus, is the most ignorant and ridiculous thing I have ever read.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the original gospels were destroyed by 4th century Christians and replaced by trinitarian gospels. If Muslims believe this ****, and that’s what it is: PURE ****, then they are seriously deluded people.
Pray for them.

Jaypeeto3

Brother, please watch out your language. The Mod may be watching and unwanted language, even implied, is a sure thing to get suspended here.

I know we can get pretty upset with being misrepresented. It’s not fair play even in trying to rebutt others’ religion. Unfortunately this is what some Muslims do, and for that as I said, they lose all the credibility they have.

 

[Reuben_J]

exoflare:

Exactly, and he’s not even a terribly religious Muslim at that. Like the vast majority of Muslims, however, he still has a huge amount of personal/societal pride invested in the religion he has been raised with since birth. He used to bring up these things a lot more with me… now he kind of starts to get nervous whenever I start to respond.

That is what bothers me about so many Muslims I’ve talked to, though. It’s just like you said… they don’t even seem to notice when their credibility has already been shot by making such ridiculous accusations. You still have to put up with all the constant attempts to destroy your own beliefs as they blindly fire insult after insult hoping that eventually they’ll hit a bull’s-eye.

There will be always people like that. Like they say, if you persist in a lie long enough people will believe it one day. The only defense against lies is by saying the truth. Even if it require admitting one’s own mistake, and the truth will set us free.

If the origin of their faith is from the power of the darkness, we need to expose it to the light. For the light overcome the darkness. No wonder the guy started to get nervous when you responded … We read and hear many testimonies from former Muslims who convert to Christianity that certain topics are off limit in Islam and the Islamic world. You don’t question but just believe. The reason is obvious - they cannot stand the scrutiny of the light. Thus certain questions are best unanswered. How convenient!

I see Muslims’ campaign at discrediting Paul as merely a camouflage to back their argument on the corruption of the Bible and the existence of a Gospel that was supposed to be written by Jesus, both of which could not be proven. This put them in a dilemma. And for that, a fall guy is needed to solve the dilemma.

 

[inJESUS]

finally, a thread came to an end. I think there are no more responses about Paul giving different teachings and nothing can be added after:

Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee **SUPERIOR ** to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.” S. 3:55

O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the Disciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14

So the quran says here as well that Jesus’ followers will prevail…who are Jesus’ followers ? us…and we prevailed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Reuben J:

This thread is a follow up from the thread **Questions for Muslims **where Paul has been discussed. To Christians, Paul was one of its greatest sons, an outstanding saint and a great servant of God. Yet we hear quite the opposite from Muslims. Among all Christian figures, Paul is perhaps the most hated by them.

I am curious about their attitude towards Paul and hope more discussion here will shed clearer light on this subject.

Because - they suppose - he perverted the Jewish message of Jesus. And is thus responsible for the Christian idea that Jesus is God. Which in Muslim terms, makes Paul guilt of shirk, “association” (of a created being with the Creator - i.e., polytheism). And, as a Jew, Jesus was essentially a Muslim because he was a righteous Jew. So, was not the founder of a Church, and certainly not God Incarnate.​

For them, Jesus is a great prophet, the next greatest after Muhammad. They have no trouble at all in thinking of Jesus as “Al-Masih”, “the Messiah”; but as God ? No. As a “son of God”, like many others, and of essentially the same sort as they, yes; as uniquely God the Son - absolutely not. The reason for this latter objection is not just abhorrence of shirk - they object to the (horrible) idea that God copulated with Mary, Mormon-god style. And for some reason, they can’t see that God can perfectly well be an eternal Trinity of distinct Divine Persons “in” the Unity of a single Divine Nature - so they think we are tritheists, or polytheists.

I think their understanding of what a sacred book ought to be is relevant - the Bible is disqualified because it is “all too human”; there is too much human crudity and sin and earthiness and whatnot for it to be a holy book - unlike the Koran. And the Koran, is almost entirely Allah’s address to Muhammad: whereas the Bible is not a book limited to what God says to one man; but contains reactions to God, narratives in which God is spoken of in the third person, and took over a thousand years to compose. In addition to which, the earliest texts have perished, who knows when. Whereas the stabilisation of the Koranic text and its finalisation by the Caliph Omar (IIRC) is well-known. ##

 

[Reuben_J]

## Because - they suppose - he perverted the Jewish message of Jesus. And is thus responsible for the Christian idea that Jesus is God. Which in Muslim terms, makes Paul guilt of shirk, “association” (of a created being with the Creator - i.e., polytheism). And, as a Jew, Jesus was essentially a Muslim because he was a righteous Jew. So, was not the founder of a Church, and certainly not God Incarnate.

For them, Jesus is a great prophet, the next greatest after Muhammad. They have no trouble at all in thinking of Jesus as “Al-Masih”, “the Messiah”; but as God ? No. As a “son of God”, like many others, and of essentially the same sort as they, yes; as uniquely God the Son - absolutely not. The reason for this latter objection is not just abhorrence of shirk - they object to the (horrible) idea that God copulated with Mary, Mormon-god style. And for some reason, they can’t see that God can perfectly well be an eternal Trinity of distinct Divine Persons “in” the Unity of a single Divine Nature - so they think we are tritheists, or polytheists.

I think their understanding of what a sacred book ought to be is relevant - the Bible is disqualified because it is “all too human”; there is too much human crudity and sin and earthiness and whatnot for it to be a holy book - unlike the Koran. And the Koran, is almost entirely Allah’s address to Muhammad: whereas the Bible is not a book limited to what God says to one man; but contains reactions to God, narratives in which God is spoken of in the third person, and took over a thousand years to compose. In addition to which, the earliest texts have perished, who knows when. Whereas the stabilisation of the Koranic text and its finalisation by the Caliph Omar (IIRC) is well-known. ##

Of which all have already been delightedly debunked.

And from the way things are, it’s quite embarassing. Everything is quiet now. Maybe that’s about it, as far as this thread goes. It’s good to keep this thread for future reference if it’s not been closed by then, and politely open its door to our Muslim brethrens to visit should similar remark about Paul crop up.

God bless.