Select Page
Was Muhammad Really a Prophet of God?

Was Muhammad Really a Prophet of God?

APOLOGETICS

ALWAYS BE READY

 APOLOGETICS

  ALWAYS BE READY

MUHAMMAD WAS NOT A PROPHET

IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE

MUHAMMAD WAS NOT A PROPHET

MUHAMMAD’S DEATH

MUHAMMAD’S DEATH

And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning us (Allah), We surely would have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), and then We certainly would have cut off his life artery (aorta)”. Quran 69:44-46 (Mushin Khan) 

In Sura 69:44-46 Muhammad makes a bold claim, namely, that if he has fabricated or invented any part of the Quran himself, then God will take hold of him and cut off his heart/aorta. What is absolutely fascinating is that, according to his own description, this is exactly how he died. Muhammad and his army had just finished attacking Khaibar, an innocent Jewish city, and many Jewish men were killed, including the husband of a women named Zainab. Zainab wanted to test whether Muhammad was truly a prophet by offering him poisoned meat. Her reasoning was that if he was a prophet then the poison would not hurt him, but if he was not a prophet then the world would be rid of him. Muhammad ate the meat became ill and died. Muhammad’s own description was that it felt as though his heart/aorta was being cut off.

Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” Sahi Bukhari 5:59:713 (Mushin Khan) 

He then said of the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta Abu Dawud 4498 

Muslims often respond by arguing that the word translated “aorta” in Surah 69:46 is الوتين (Al Watina) and the word used in the Hadiths is أَبْهَرِي (Ab’hari). This is correct, however, both words mean the same thing, especially in their context. This is easy to see when you look at an Arabic dictionary for those words. You can click on each word to get the dictionary meaning. الوتين (Al Watina)أَبْهَرِي (Ab’hari). Combine this with the fact that all the translators of the Quran and Hadiths use the word aorta, and you have a pretty good argument that Muhammad fabricated the Quran.

TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY

TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY

As if the arguments above are not enough, there is another amusing Hadith which adds insult to injury. This Hadith which Im about to read to you is repeated is Bukhari at least 4 times. In Sahi Nukhari Volume 7, Book 71, Number 664, Mahammad claimed that if you eat seven Ajwa dates in the morning then no poison can hurt you. It’s a pity Muhammad forgot to eat his morning dates. Not only this he but the third Caliph, Othman, the one who burned all the Quranic manuscripts except his own special copy, he died because of a poison tipped sword from a fellow Muslim in battle. He didn’t eat his morning dates either. 

Narrated by Sad; I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “Whoever takes seven ‘Ajwa dates in the morning will not be effected by magic or poison on that day.”Sahi Bukhari 5:59:713 (Mushin Khan) 

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

It seems as plain as day that Muhammad died in the very fashion he said he would if he had fabricated the Quran. This evidence is undeniable. Furthermore, the very remedy which he claimed could save both himself and everyone else from the effects of poison was an absolute failure. This is not a man that anyone should follow, especially not you or me.

Does 1 John 2:19 Teach Eternal Security

Does 1 John 2:19 Teach Eternal Security

THEOLOGY BLOG

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

 THEOLOGY

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

DOES 1 JOHN 2:19 TEACH ETERNAL SECURITY?

DOES 1 JOHN 2:19 TEACH ETERNAL SECURITY?

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.  1 John 2:18-19

This passage has probably been one of the more difficult passages of scripture for me to interpret. Not because of the text itself but because of the way it was presented to me by eternal security advocates. However, upon a proper examination of this text it doesn’t seem to support eternal security at all.

The eternal security argument usually goes some thing like this “but they were never of us; for if they had ever been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us forever: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were never of us“. Notice that I added the words “never”, “ever” and “forever“, because that is what eternal security advocates are claiming that this text is saying. But before we begin to break down these verses, let’s first look at the passage in context.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1 John 2:18

John is speaking of people he calls “antichrist’s”, this is not talking about all believers. Essentially, these are false teachers who deny that Jesus has come in the flesh. They were gnostics who believed that all flesh was evil and that the spiritual realm was good, and therefore it didn’t matter how they lived because the flesh will always be sinful and it cannot effect the spirit. This is why they were denying that Jesus came in the flesh. So this is not a good passage to use to teach the eternal security of believers, because its not the topic being discussed. It falls into the category or an unclear passage and shouldn’t be used to interpret the clear passages which teach conditional security.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; 1 John 2:19

The passage here says that these false teachers went out from us, that is the fellowship of believers, but they were not of us. It does not say that they were never of us. It simply says that at the time they left us, they were not of us. That’s it. They left us because they were not of us at that point in time. We cannot insert the word “never” before the words “of us”.

For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1 John 2:19

This next section of the verse continues the flow and says that if they had been of us, they would have no doubt continued with us, but it still doesn’t add the words “never”, “ever” or “forever”. These words are assumed by eternal security advocates. John is referring to a group of anti-christs who left the company of believers at a particular point in time. He is not speaking of eternal security. Therefore, this passage can be understood as simply saying that if they had been of us, at the time which they departed from us, then they would have continued with us instead of departing from us. This shouldn’t be understood as saying they would have continued with us forever. The word forever is not used and John is referring to an event which took place at a particular point in time. Furthermore, that interpretation would contradict the clear passages which teach that a believer can lose their salvation. A objective reader, not polluted with once saved always saved opinions, would conclude that John is saying no more than this; if they had been believers when they left us then they would have continued with us instead of leaving us. 

The final words of the passage become simple to understand when this interpretation is accepted. These anti-christs went out from us instead of continuing with us so that it would be revealed that at that time they were not of us. We shouldn’t see this passage as an attempt by John to teach eternal security. He isn’t even touching the topic. I accept that these anti-christs may never have been believers. But the the fact that John does not discuss their prior condition nor does he say that anyone of us will continue with us forever, rules out this passage as a proof text for eternal security. 

With this interpretation being a plausible one, we ought then to interpret the vague and unclear passages in light of the clear ones. When we do that we will end up with conditional security rather eternal security. 

You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Romans 11:19-21

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away … If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:2, 6

Does Philippians 1:6 Teach Eternal Security?

Does Philippians 1:6 Teach Eternal Security?

THEOLOGY BLOG

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

 THEOLOGY

  THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

DOES PHILIPPIANS 1:6 TEACH ETERNAL SECURITY?

DOES PHILIPPIANS 1:6 TEACH ETERNAL SECURITY

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Thanksgiving and Prayer I thank my God every time I remember you. In every prayer for all of you, I always pray with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will continue to perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. Philippians 1:1-6

Philippians 1:6 is frequently misinterpreted as referring to the salvation and eternal security of the individual believer. However, that is not what the text is about. Neither the context nor the words used by Paul in this wonderful text support the idea that a believer’s salvation is eternally secured from the moment they believe. That belief would contradict many other passages of scripture which imply conditional security.

Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16

Instead, this text is speaking of the financial aid gift which the Philippians sent to the Apostle Paul for the advancement of the gospel. If we begin in Philippians 1:1 we see that Paul and Timothy are writing to the saints in Philippi along with the leaders of the church there. In Philippians 1:1-5 He informs them that whenever he prays for them he does so with joy because of their partnership in the gospel. This aspect of Paul’s words must not be overlooked. In Philippians 4:15-16 he speaks of this in more detail and brings to their memory the fact that in the early days no-one partnered with him in the matter of giving and receiving except the Philippians. Furthermore, Philippians 4:18 implies that they had just sent him another gift. This is what Paul is referencing in Philippians 1:5 when he says that he remembers them with joy because of their partnership with him in the gospel.

 

In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now  Philippians 1:4-5

 

Nevertheless, you have done well to share in my affliction. And as you Philippians know, in the early days of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church but you partnered with me in the matter of giving and receiving. For even while I was in Thessalonica, you provided for my needs again and again. Not that I am seeking a gift, but I am looking for the fruit that may be credited to your account. I have all I need and more, now that I have received your gifts from Epaphroditus. They are a sweet smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. Philippians 4:14-18

With that context in mind, what is the good work Paul is referring to? It’s not salvation, its the giving of the gift to Paul isn’t it? This becomes especially clear to me when I noticed that verses 1-6 are all part of the exact same sentence. That changes the meaning of the passage completely. No longer can the passage be understood as a reference to eternal security. Paul is telling the Philippians that the good work which God began in them, namely their gift of financial aid, will continue to be perfected until Christ returns for his church at his second coming. Think about that, we are still continuing to benefit from that great work God which God began in the hearts of the Philippians saints today, and the church will continue to benifit from that gift until the very day Jesus Christ returns.

Even if you disagree with me on the interpretation of this verse, you still can’t get eternal security from it. This epistle was not written to you personally, it was written to the Philippians. Furthermore, Paul is not making a promise to the Philippians, he is expressing his confidence. He is confident that he who began a good work in them will continue to perfect it until the day of Christ. Even if you take this as a reference to salvation, Paul certainly doesn’t express this confidence to everyone.  In Galatians 5:4 Paul says the opposite to those who ceased trusting in Christ alone and put their trust in works. Both Philippians 1:6 and Galatains 5:4 need to be read in a way that both texts can be harmonised. The only way to accomplish this is by interpreting Philippians 1:6 in the manner I have outlined.

In conclusion, In Philippians 1:6 Paul is in no way teaching eternal security, neither is he making a promise to us or the Philippians. Rather, Paul is expressing his confidence that God will perfect the good work which he began in the hearts of the Philippians saints, namely the gift of financial aid from the Philippians to Paul, until the return of Christ. 

 

Can Police Arrest Street Preachers?

Can Police Arrest Street Preachers?

LAW BLOG

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

 LAW

  KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

POLICE POWER OF ARREST

ENGLAND AND WALES

POLICE POWER OF ARREST

ENGLAND AND WALES

If you have ever been confronted by police for street preaching, you know it can be a very intimidating experience. Police often insist you are not allowed to street preach and often threaten you with arrest if you don’t move on. Equally as intimidating is trying to understand the law. Where do you find out what the law is? How do you understand legal language and terminology? These are the kinds of questions I struggled with when I began street preaching in Australia many years before I moved to the UK. These questions resulted in numerous arrests, court battles and eventually I was arguing in Australia’s highest court, namely the High Court in Camberra. I want to use my experience to help you understand the law here in England and Wales. Below is an extract from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This act is still in force and governs the police powers of arrest in England and Wales. Read through the extract and then read my comments to get a proper understanding of the legislation and how it should be interpreted. If you can read the bible and understand theology then you can read and understand law. There are some differences in the rules of interpretation but those differences won’t be relevant at this stage of understanding the law.

(1) A constable may arrest without a warrant—

     (a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;

     (b) anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;

     (c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;

     (d) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

(2) If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

(3) If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—

     (a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;

 (b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

Basically, sections (1), (2), and (3) of the legislation above say that police are empowered to arrest you if they suspect you have, are, or are going to commit an offence. This applies to any offence. However, this is not the end of the legislation and as we will see, section (4) shackles those powers of arrest and only permits police to use those powers if it is necessary for the reasons specified in section (5). 

(4) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for any     of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is necessary to arrest the person in question.

This is a significant piece of legislation. In Australia, where I come from, this kind of provision does not exist and police have wide powers for arrest. Section (4) is a piece of legislation every street preacher in England and Wales should praise God for. Simply put, section (4) makes it unlawful for a police officer to arrest you unless it is necessary to do so for one or more of the reasons listed in section (5). Let’s look at those reasons carefully.  

(5) The reasons are—

     (a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

     (b) correspondingly as regards the person’s address;

These two are easy ones for us to knock out. Just carry ID and proof of address with you when you go out preaching and show it to a police constable if they request it. There is no need to be afraid here because you know that you have the right to street preach. The government already knows where you live because the council requires you to register who lives in your home and the police are paid for by the council. So just give them your name and address, you have nothing to hide.

   (c) to prevent the person in question—

          (i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person; (ii) suffering physical injury;

          (iii) causing loss of or damage to property;

Christians shouldn’t need to worry about the first and third parts of this section because we don’t seek to intentionally hurt ourselves or anyone else and we don’t seek to damage personal or public property. So that rules out the first and third parts of this sub-section. The second part is a potential problem for street preachers. There are times when people do try to attack street preachers. If police are present and there is good reason for them to believe someone is going to injure you then they can arrest you. However, it could be argued this would apply more to an uncontrollable mob trying to hurt you rather than an individual. If there was just a few individuals the police could arrest them instead, especially if your not doing anything that would incite a reasonable man to violence. So this is something you should be aware of when you are speaking to police on the streets.

(iv) committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6));

Again, this section could not be used against a genuine Christian out in the streets preaching the gospel.

(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

I’m sure a police officer would be tempted to use this section, however, if people can walk around you and you are not obstructing cars or pedestrians then this section will not be an obstacle for you.

(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

This section has no relevance for street preachers either. 

(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

This section is a potential problem but only if you are being beligerant to police. Sometimes we can become defensive and dispute with police. This might give the police and excuse to say they couldn’t investigate the offense in the street so they  arrested you for questioning. It’s an extreme case but if you are patient with police, record the conversation and answer their questions then you shouldn’t have any issues with this provision. A good idea is to repeatedly tell the police officer that you are more then willing to answer his questions and assist him in his investigation.

(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question

This also is not a provision that street preachers should worry about. It’s really more to do with people who have a habit of disappearing and not being contactable at their address. Illegal refugees might be a good example or perhaps people living on the streets. Certainly not a law abiding street preacher who provides his name and address along with proof of address and ID.

I think that at this stage you realise that the police powers of arrest are limited in scope and really they are intended to protect the public from violence and indecency and to assist police in their investigation of offences and, if required, to issue you with a summons to attend court. Once this is properly understood you can shape your behaviour in such a way that the police can never lawfully arrest you. But sometime police might arrest you anyway. To learn how to respond in that situation and to get my personal tips and trick stay tuned for more of my blogs on street preaching and the law. If you want to look at the legislation on the government website click here, and if you want a summary on the government website then click here.