Available on Amazon.com
The Bible and the Book Of Mormon.
The house of Israel.
Eden:house of faith
This is my work and my glory
Answers to the critics of the lDS church
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_20?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=massimo+franceschini&sprefix=massimo+Franceschini%2Caps%2C253
Commentario del Vecchio testamento.
Commentario del Vangelo.
Commentario di Atti ed Epistole.
Commentario di Rivelazione.
Commentario di Dottrina ed alleanze,
Commentario della perla di gran prezzo,
Il Casato di israele.
Commentario del Libro di Mormon da 1 Nefi ad Helaman.
Commentario del libro di Mormon da 3 Nefi a Moroni.
Santi degli ultimi giorni.
Eden:casa della fede
Questa e' la mia opera e la mia gloria.
Risposte ai critici della chiesa sug
A Biblia e o livro de Mormon
La Biblia y el libro de Mormon.
Comentario de el libro de mormon 1 Nefi Mosiah
Comentario de el lirbo de Mormon mosiah terzero nefi
comentario de el libro de Mormon terzero Nefi Moroni
lunedì 29 ottobre 2012
domenica 9 settembre 2012
Cain.
Cain.
Cain is the classic scriptural example of how free agency can be misused even under the best possible conditions. First of all, he was born in the best possible family because both of his parents actually saw and conversed with the Lord face to face when they had lived in the garden of Eden. It was God who had given them “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26). In fact, God was the one who married Adam and Eve as husband and wife.Secondly, Cain was their firstborn child. From this we can infer that he was told about God by his parents before any of the other children. This would include being taught the principles of salvation. We know this because he offered up sacrifices to God in the same manner that God later instructed the children of Israel to do under the law of Moses. (see Moses 5:5). However, Cain didn’t follow the commandments of God. In Genesis 4:4,5 we read, “And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.”
This scripture clearly tells us that Cain's offering to the Lord was not done according to the commandments which God had given. Rather than acting obediently to God, Cain acted independently of his Maker. Even so, God in his love and mercy gave him the opportunity to correct his behavior. “And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Genesis 4:6,7).
Yet despite this second chance, Cain wouldn’t repent and humble himself. And the reason why is because “Cain loved Satan more than God” (Moses 5:18). When Cain refused to submit to God’s will, he was told, “For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world. And it shall be said in time to come--That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent. And Cain was wroth, and listened not any more to the voice of the Lord, neither to Abel, his brother, who walked in holiness before the Lord. (Moses 5:24-27).
At this point we can clearly see that each of us, like Cain, has been given the opportunity to listen to God or listen to Satan. Furthermore, like Cain, we have the same opportunity to use the principle of repentance. Unfortunately, Cain rejected this principle as well as the other commandments of God.
I’d like to suggest that this story has particular significance to the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Like Cain, we too have been given the testimony of the true knowledge of God. Like Cain, we too have been given the gift of Holy Ghost. Cain is an example of what can happen to us when we fail to obey God, especially those of us who have made sacred and solemn promises at the time of our baptism to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and to keep His commandments always. And Cain is an example of what can happen to us when we violate that promise because of our stubbornness and unrepentant attitude.
It’s also instructive for us to look at what happened to Cain after God had cursed him. We read in Genesis 4:13,14, “And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment [is] greater than I can bear.Genesis 4:14 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me.”
But the Lord showed mercy upon him when “God said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”
Cain was influenced by Lucifer who had the same attitude when he lived in our pre-mortal state. He was proud and had no faith in God. Like Can, Lucifer was born into the best family in heaven, but he misused his free agency and lost all the advantages that a good family can bring. If this could happen to Cain, and if it could happen to Lucifer, it can happen to anyone, even those who have been born into the Church. It is not what we are given by the Lord that matters so much as the proper use of our free agency that determines our future. The safest course to follow is having faith in Jesus Christ and being obedient to the gospel principles. To do otherwise is to inherit the same fate which Cain obtained.
TESTIMONY MEETINGS.
TESTIMONY MEETINGS.
Many people have asked me why we have a testimony meeting?The first and most obvious reason is because we are asked to be witnesses of Jesus Christ wherever we may be. We are to be witnesses of Him during any occasion, in any place, and at any time. Part of the reason for our membership in the church is to proclaim the truth of the restored gospel to others, and this includes doing so during our testimony meetings.
However, our testimony is not given because we are forced or pressured into doing so. Instead, people are invited to share their testimony with others during this special meeting. And this is in keeping with the gospel of Christ which is based on the free exercise of our agency and not on any compulsory means.
Another reason why we are asked to bear our testimony is to reinforce each other in the faith. When we bear our testimony, we are helping others to obtain a testimony for themselves. And that testimony is based on our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In that sense, a testimony can be compared to helping a blind person cross the street.
But there is another reason for sharing our feelings with others of our faith. The scriptures tell us, “And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.”
In Ether 12:7,8,12 we read, “For it was by faith that Christ showed himself unto our fathers, after he had risen from the dead; and he showed not himself unto them until after they had faith in him; wherefore, it must needs be that some had faith in him, for he showed himself not unto the world. But because of the faith of men he has shown himself unto the world, and glorified the name of the Father, and prepared a way that thereby others might be partakers of the heavenly gift, that they might hope for those things which they have not seen… For if there be no faith among the children of men God can do no miracle among them; wherefore, he showed not himself until after their faith.”
By giving our testimony we help build a testimony in others and thereby help build their faith, because a testimony is based on faith. The scriptures tell us, “For if there be no faith among the children of men God can do no miracle among them; wherefore, he showed no himself until after their faith.” Thus, we see that when a person has faith, it can bring miracles into their life. More than that it helps erase doubts and discouragement and can cause people to have a more abundant life.
Faith is a small word that has immense meaning. Faith is the key to eternity because without faith in Jesus Christ there can be no exaltation. Faith is also the key that unlocks the power of righteousness. Although a man must have the authority to act for God, without faith, neither righteousness nor authority has any power.
It is interesting to note how the word testimony is connected to faith. Often we hear people say, “I know this is true with all of my heart!” When said this way, we speak in terms of “knowing” something. What makes this so strange is that faith is believing in something you don’t know. However, there is no contradiction is making such a statement because, even though we can’t actually see or experience that which we have faith in, the feelings which provide us this sure knowledge comes from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Thus, our “knowledge” comes not from an experience in reality, but from the sure knowledge which the Holy Ghost imparts to those who seek to know the truth.
In Ether 12:14-30 “Behold, it was the faith of Nephi and Lehi that wrought the change upon the Lamanites, that they were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost. Behold, it was the faith of Ammon and his brethren which wrought so great a miracle among the Lamanites. Yea, and even all they who wrought miracles wrought them by faith, even those who were before Christ and also those who were after. And I, Moroni, having heard these words, was comforted, and said: O Lord, thy righteous will be done, for I know that thou workest unto the children of men according to their faith; For the brother of Jared said unto the mountain Zerin, Remove--and it was removed. And if he had not had faith it would not have moved; wherefore thou workest after men have faith.”
Normally when we meet on Sundays, our worship service centers on teaching one another the gospel of Jesus Christ. But one Sunday a month, we reserve for sharing our testimony with one another. Perhaps this meeting can be described more as a spiritual reunion where we share those things that have strengthened our faith in hopes of strengthening the faith of others.
venerdì 7 settembre 2012
Miracles as signs.
Miracles as signs.
Talking always about the Koran not only the disciples of Jesus would have been liars if Jesus was not resurrected but the fourty days period between the resurrection and the ascension would have been only folklore with Jesus going trough walls and going in Heaven in a cloud. Leaving aside this strange and blasphemous idea let's take a look at the signs that Jesus said would have followed His followers and Muhammad is supposed to be one of them because He believed in Jesus, no totally but he said that Jesus was the greatest prophet until his time.
From the book "The New Testament, its background, growth, and content" by Bruce M. Metzger pag 132
The Gospels report that Jesus wrought many wonderfoul cures on men's bodies and exercised on occasion an extraordinary control over what we cal "inanimate nature"." These deeds are not regarded as interferences with so called laws of nature, but as tokens of a new order of life inaugurated by the coming of Christ.
Accounts of 37 miraclers of Jesus are included in the 4 Gospels. Of this number 18 are narrated in one Gospel only, six in two Gospels, 12 in three Gospels and one ( the feeding of the 5.000) in all 4 Gospels.
Luke 7:19
19 ¶ And John calling [unto him] two of his disciples sent [them] to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luke 7:20
20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luke 7:21
21 And in that same hour he cured many of [their] infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many [that were] blind he gave sight.
Luke 7:22
22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Luke 7:23
23 And blessed is [he], whosoever shall not be offended in me.
19 ¶ And John calling [unto him] two of his disciples sent [them] to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luke 7:20
20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luke 7:21
21 And in that same hour he cured many of [their] infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many [that were] blind he gave sight.
Luke 7:22
22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
Luke 7:23
23 And blessed is [he], whosoever shall not be offended in me.
The implication of these words is that the miracles are not a mere addendum to the Messianic work of Jesus, but are an integral part of it.
They attest the beginning of the era of salvation in which, according to Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 35:3-6) illness and misery are to cease and liberation from sin is to become a reality.
Other passages in the Gospels also preserve Jesus' own testimony concerning his powers of healing and exorcism. For example, both Matthew and Luke record Jesus' reply to those who had charged that His ability to effect exorcism was derived from Beelzebub (Satan)
Matthew 12:24
24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Matthew 12:25
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Matthew 12:26
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Matthew 12:27
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Matthew 12:28
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Matthew 12:25
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Matthew 12:26
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Matthew 12:27
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Matthew 12:28
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Then the Kingdom of God is come unto you!!!!!!
Luke 13:32
32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third [day] I shall be perfected.
32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third [day] I shall be perfected.
Likewise, when Jesus sends out his disciples on a mission, he commands them to heal the sick and cast out evil spirits (Mark 3:14-15, Luke 10:9) clearly a further confirmation of his having performed such thing himself.
Even Jesus' enemies acknowledged that he possessed more than human power. Though they attributed it to his being in league with the Devil ( Matthew 12:24 Luke 11:18), or to his utilizing black magic , they did not deny the reality of His power.
All the strata of the Gospels identified by literary criticism testify to Jesus' ability to work miracles. Even the narratives of Jesus' temptations (Matthew 4:1 -11 Luke 4:2-17) presuppose that he had thi power. We are not tempted to change stones into bred, because we cannot change them. Such a proposal can be a temptation only to one who has the possibility to do it. It is incredible that anyone should have told such a story about Himslef to persons who knew that he had never done a mighty work; it is equally incredible that anyone should invent such a story about a person who had never been known to do anything miraculous.
Finally, it should be observed that to the Gospel writers the miracles have a close connction with Jesus' announcing the coming of God's kingdom. Jesus' works of healing were not merely acts of compassion, though he was certainly concerned about human suffering. The deepest meaning of the miracles lies in their testimony to the reality of God's love and power that Jesus brings into human life.
Luke 11:20
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
Because his miracles were signs through which the kingdom was revealed, in its preaching the early church recounted the deeds as well as the works of Jesus in order to awaken saving faith in Hin as the true Messiah of God.
Muhammad had anything to do with miracles because he was not a follower of Jesus because Jesus declared
Matthew 10:7
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 10:8
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 10:8
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
and they saw the results.
Mark 6:7
7 ¶ And he called [unto him] the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
7 ¶ And he called [unto him] the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
Mark 6:13
13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed [them].
13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed [them].
so it is very easy to see that the followers of Jesus had His power. Muhammad didn't work any miracle and his followers too, conclusion they are not real followers of Jesus, in fact they deny His divinity, His atonement and His resurrection.
Authority and church.
Authority and church.
According to what the Bible tells us, Jesus established His own church (Matthew 16:18). In 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul explains what this church consisted of. He wrote, "God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Note the order of priority: The apostles are listed first. And the reason for this is because they hold the keys of the kingdom. As such, they receive revelation for the church as they are guided by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Paul further explained to the Ephesians in 4:11-13 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Again we see that the apostles are listed first, and we are also instructed as to the purpose of these positions. If this was necessary back in the days of Peter and Paul, and this was the way Jesus organized His Church, it is obvious that this same organization needs to remain until we all come in the unity of faith and measure up to the full stature of Christ. Since this has not happened yet, it is equally obvious that we still need to have this same organization in the church today.
But what is an apostle, and how do they help us to come to a unity of the faith and measure up to Christ? To answer that question, let me ask two others questions. What is a prophet? And how does someone get their authority to become a prophet?
The primary function of a prophet is to foretell the future. A carefully study of the prophets found in the Bible shows that their prophecies of future events is what eventually became viewed as scripture. Certainly no definition of the term "prophet" which excludes the predicting of future events can be considered valid in the light of the scriptures.
Key passages from the Old Testament clearly define the role of the prophets as foretellers of future events and insist that fulfillment of his prophecies is the proof that a man is truly called from God (see Jeremiah 28:9, Ezekiel 33:33 , and Acts 3:24 Acts 3:18). In most cases, a prophet prefaces his remarks by saying, "Thus saith the Lord." When he does, he is, in effect, declaring his authority for the things he says.
Having defined what a prophet is, we need now to define what the word "authority" means and how a person receives authority from God. Webster's dictionary defines the word "authority" as: "legal power, warrant, testimony, rule, precedent, influence derived from office or character, credit, credibility; in Con. the Magistracy or body of justices." According to Webster's College Dictionary it says: "1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues; the right to control, command, or determine. 2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization. 3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency."
The Bible gives us a little more information about how one receives this authority. In Hebrews 5:4 it reads, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as [was] Aaron." In Exodus 28:1 we read, "AND take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, [even] Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons."
The Bible tells us that man doesn't take it upon himself to speak in the name of God. Instead, it is God who authorizes men to act for Him. In 2 Chronicles 26:18 we read of an incident where the king himself was forbidden to perform a priestly act. "And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, [It appertaineth] not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither [shall it be] for thine honour from the LORD God.
Since Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, He did not hold the Levitical priesthood. But did He have authority to speak in the name of God? Let's look at what the scriptures tell us. In Matthew 7:29 it says of Jesus, "For he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as the scribes." We also read, "And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:23-24). "And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine [is] this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him." (Mark 1:27).
Where and how did Jesus received His authority? In John 5:27 it tells us that it was God, the Father who gave Him this authority. "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." In Psalms 2:7 we read, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee," and in Psalms 110:4 we read, "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." Paul quoted both of these scripture when he wrote in Hebrews 5:5,6 "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."
Since these verses of scriptures tell us that God was talking to His Son, we need to make sure that Jesus was the Son whom God was talking about. Let's look at what the scriptures say. Speaking about Jesus at the time He was baptized, "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). When Jesus was high up in a mountain with three of His apostles "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. Hear ye him" (Matthew 17:5). Here we learn that not only did God declare that Jesus was His Son, but we also see that God gave Him His authority in front of witnesses.
The Bible continues by saying, "Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, [saying], I have both glorified [it], and will glorify [it] again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard [it], said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes."
On two other important occasions Jesus clearly demonstrated His authority. In John 11:40-45 we read, "Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? Then they took away the stone [from the place] where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up [his] eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said [it], that they may believe that thou hast sent me. He said this before to do the miracle. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him."
But this wasn't the only time that Jesus demonstrated His authority. In another occasion "he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city. And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. the scribes were offended." This [man] blasphemeth." In verses 6 and 8 Jesus pointed out "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house... But when the multitudes saw [it], they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men" (Matthew 9:1,2).
As we see, the scriptures clearly testifies that God Himself gave His personal reassurance that Jesus was indeed His Son and that He gave him His power and authority. The apostles likewise received the same authority from Jesus. Paul stated, "For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed" (2 Corinthians 10:8).
Even in the Old Testament times this idea was very well understood. In 1 Kings 17:1 we read, "AND Elijah the Tishbite, [who was] of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, [As] the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word." Since only God can control the weather, when he said, "according to my word" this showed that the power of his authority had come from God.
Later on, he showed his authority again when he challenged the prophets of Baal. "Then said Elijah unto the people, I, [even] I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets [are] four hundred and fifty men" (1 Kings 18:22). "Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay [it] on wood, and put no fire [under]: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay [it] on wood, and put no fire [under]: And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken. And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress [it] first; for ye [are] many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire [under]. And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed [it], and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But [there was] no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he [is] a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, [or] peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. When he was to leave he gave his mantel to Elisha.and Elijah passed by him, and cast his mantle upon him." 1 Kings 18:23-27
It was Jesus who said on this topic. Mark 16:17 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues."
According to what the Bible tells us, Jesus established His own church (Matthew 16:18). In 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul explains what this church consisted of. He wrote, "God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Note the order of priority: The apostles are listed first. And the reason for this is because they hold the keys of the kingdom. As such, they receive revelation for the church as they are guided by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Paul further explained to the Ephesians in 4:11-13 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Again we see that the apostles are listed first, and we are also instructed as to the purpose of these positions. If this was necessary back in the days of Peter and Paul, and this was the way Jesus organized His Church, it is obvious that this same organization needs to remain until we all come in the unity of faith and measure up to the full stature of Christ. Since this has not happened yet, it is equally obvious that we still need to have this same organization in the church today.
But what is an apostle, and how do they help us to come to a unity of the faith and measure up to Christ? To answer that question, let me ask two others questions. What is a prophet? And how does someone get their authority to become a prophet?
The primary function of a prophet is to foretell the future. A carefully study of the prophets found in the Bible shows that their prophecies of future events is what eventually became viewed as scripture. Certainly no definition of the term "prophet" which excludes the predicting of future events can be considered valid in the light of the scriptures.
Key passages from the Old Testament clearly define the role of the prophets as foretellers of future events and insist that fulfillment of his prophecies is the proof that a man is truly called from God (see Jeremiah 28:9, Ezekiel 33:33 , and Acts 3:24 Acts 3:18). In most cases, a prophet prefaces his remarks by saying, "Thus saith the Lord." When he does, he is, in effect, declaring his authority for the things he says.
Having defined what a prophet is, we need now to define what the word "authority" means and how a person receives authority from God. Webster's dictionary defines the word "authority" as: "legal power, warrant, testimony, rule, precedent, influence derived from office or character, credit, credibility; in Con. the Magistracy or body of justices." According to Webster's College Dictionary it says: "1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues; the right to control, command, or determine. 2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization. 3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency."
The Bible gives us a little more information about how one receives this authority. In Hebrews 5:4 it reads, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as [was] Aaron." In Exodus 28:1 we read, "AND take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, [even] Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons."
The Bible tells us that man doesn't take it upon himself to speak in the name of God. Instead, it is God who authorizes men to act for Him. In 2 Chronicles 26:18 we read of an incident where the king himself was forbidden to perform a priestly act. "And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, [It appertaineth] not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither [shall it be] for thine honour from the LORD God.
Since Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, He did not hold the Levitical priesthood. But did He have authority to speak in the name of God? Let's look at what the scriptures tell us. In Matthew 7:29 it says of Jesus, "For he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as the scribes." We also read, "And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:23-24). "And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine [is] this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him." (Mark 1:27).
Where and how did Jesus received His authority? In John 5:27 it tells us that it was God, the Father who gave Him this authority. "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." In Psalms 2:7 we read, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee," and in Psalms 110:4 we read, "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." Paul quoted both of these scripture when he wrote in Hebrews 5:5,6 "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."
Since these verses of scriptures tell us that God was talking to His Son, we need to make sure that Jesus was the Son whom God was talking about. Let's look at what the scriptures say. Speaking about Jesus at the time He was baptized, "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). When Jesus was high up in a mountain with three of His apostles "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. Hear ye him" (Matthew 17:5). Here we learn that not only did God declare that Jesus was His Son, but we also see that God gave Him His authority in front of witnesses.
The Bible continues by saying, "Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, [saying], I have both glorified [it], and will glorify [it] again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard [it], said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes."
On two other important occasions Jesus clearly demonstrated His authority. In John 11:40-45 we read, "Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? Then they took away the stone [from the place] where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up [his] eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said [it], that they may believe that thou hast sent me. He said this before to do the miracle. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him."
But this wasn't the only time that Jesus demonstrated His authority. In another occasion "he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city. And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. the scribes were offended." This [man] blasphemeth." In verses 6 and 8 Jesus pointed out "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house... But when the multitudes saw [it], they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men" (Matthew 9:1,2).
As we see, the scriptures clearly testifies that God Himself gave His personal reassurance that Jesus was indeed His Son and that He gave him His power and authority. The apostles likewise received the same authority from Jesus. Paul stated, "For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed" (2 Corinthians 10:8).
Even in the Old Testament times this idea was very well understood. In 1 Kings 17:1 we read, "AND Elijah the Tishbite, [who was] of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, [As] the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word." Since only God can control the weather, when he said, "according to my word" this showed that the power of his authority had come from God.
Later on, he showed his authority again when he challenged the prophets of Baal. "Then said Elijah unto the people, I, [even] I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets [are] four hundred and fifty men" (1 Kings 18:22). "Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay [it] on wood, and put no fire [under]: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay [it] on wood, and put no fire [under]: And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken. And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress [it] first; for ye [are] many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire [under]. And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed [it], and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But [there was] no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he [is] a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, [or] peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. When he was to leave he gave his mantel to Elisha.and Elijah passed by him, and cast his mantle upon him." 1 Kings 18:23-27
It was Jesus who said on this topic. Mark 16:17 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues."
Then is pretty clear that these things should be still in force in the Christian churches today and for the Moslems the questions are:" Did Muhammad receive and show this authority? Not at all. Jesus is declared from God Himself to be a son of Him, Muhammad denied it. Jesus established a church in which prophets are peculiar and prophets are supposed to prophecy. Muhammad didn't build any church an best of all denied that prophets should be in force after him. He was the last prophet, according to his word, but what he prophesied? Nothing!. The signs mentioned from Jesus never followed him and his followers. I know why. Do you?
THE FINGERPRINTS OF GOD.
THE FINGERPRINTS OF GOD.
To determine whether the Koran is indeed the word of God, one thing we can do is to look for, what I call, the "fingerprint of God" in the Koran, which is easily found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. What I mean by this is that every writer has his own style, which distinguishes them from every other writer. And God is no different. To find the fingerprint of God we can look in many different places, such as in prophecy, symbolism, the numerical code, Gametria, others.
To understand the fingerprints of God concerning prophecy, I suggest you read my page entitled "The divine Prism," after that "Numbers, symbolism and prophecy" and next, "prophesies in names In my articles regarding numbers, I show several basic things which have been universally acknowledged as having a symbol. In these articles I've pointed out the basic meaning of numbers. Rather than go over this information again, in this article we will take a look the numeral "codes". We know that God works in intervals of seven (to show that something has been completed or fulfilled), but God also works in intervals of 50.
In his article, "Codes in the Torah," professor Daniel Michaelson wrote: "The number 50 has several important meanings in Judaism. Every fiftieth year is a Jubilee year; the Torah was given 50 days after the exodus from Egypt, and there are 50 gates of wisdom." A skeptical reader would say that all of this is nothing more than a coincidence, perhaps arguing that we would be able to find such a system in any book. Daniel Michaelsen addresses this idea, detailing the mathematical probability of these Torah codes and concludes that "the probability of such a coincidence is about ONE IN THREE MILLION.
"Computers have been used to decode this very interesting and intriguing code. For example, in 1982 Dr. Eli Rips of the Institute of Mathematics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem with others used computers to find meaningful words in the biblical text at equidistant intervals. As an example, the computer was asked to find all appearances of the word Israel in the first ten thousand letters of Genesis, at equal intervals ranging from 100 - to 100. The computer demonstrated that the word Israel is spelled out only twice, at interval of 7 and 50, in Genesis chapter one. The significance of this finding according to Michaelson is that: "These are exactly the four verses that constitute the Kiddush which we recite over a cup of wine every Friday night to sanctify the Sabbath.
"This is astounding because 7 and 50 are the only numbers related to Shabbat. Seven stands for both the Seventh day of creation and the seventh year of Shmita when the land rests. After seven shimita cycles the land rests also on the fiftieth year, the Jubilee year. Is this merely a coincidence? A simple calculation shows that the probability of the word Israel appearing once at a given interval in the above verses is about 1 in 100. The chance of two appearance at the interval of 7 and 50 either backwards of forwards is about 1 in 400,000. The name of Israel, found in code, at intervals which speak of resting the land on the seventh and fiftieth year! Why not an interval of 8 or 49?"
The skeptic believe in the power of chance.
From the Book "The Creator Beyond Time and Space" by Mark Eastman, he states, "The first 17 verses of the Gospel of Matthew are a logical unit, or section, which deals with a single principal subject: The genealogy of Jesus Christ. It contains 72 Greek vocabulary words in these initial 17 verses. The number of words which are nouns is exactly 56, or 7X8. The Greek word "the" occurs most frequently in the passage: exactly 56 times, or 7X8. Also, the number of different forms in which the article "the" occurs is exactly 7. There are two main sections in the passage: verse 1-11 and 12-17. In the first main section, the number of Greek vocabulary words used is 49. or 7 x7. Why not 48 or 50?
"Of these 49 words, the number of those beginning with a vowel is 28, or 7x4. The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7x3. The total numbers of letters in these 49 words is 266, or 7x38. The number of vowels among these 266 letters is 140, or 7x20. The number of consonants is 126, or 7x18. Of the 49 words, the number of words which occur more than once is 35, or 7x5. The number of words occurring only once is 14, or 7x2. The number of words which occur in only one form is exactly 42, or 7x6. the number of words appearing in more than one form is also 7.
"The number of the 49 Greek vocabulary words which are nouns is 42, or 7x6. The number of words which are not nouns is 7. Of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or exactly 7x5. These 35 names are used 63 times, or 7x9. The number of male names is 28,or 7x4. These male names occur 56 times, or 7x8. the number which are not male names is 7. Three women are mentioned Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. The number of Greek letters in these three names is 14, 7x2.. The number of compound nouns is 7, The number of Greek letters in these 7 nouns is 49 or 7x7 Only one city is mentioned in this passage, Babylon, which in Greek contains exactly 7 letters. And on it goes."
Gametria.
There are even more features in the numerical structure of the words themselves. As you may know, both Hebrew and Greek use the letters of the alphabet for numerical values, therefore, every word, in either Hebrew or Greek has a numeric value of its own by adding up the values of the letters in that particular word. The study of the numerical values of words is called gametria.
The 72 vocabulary words add up to a gametrical value of 42.364, or 7 x 6.052. If one Greek letter was changed, this would not happen. The 72 words appear in 90 forms, some appear in more than one form. The numeric value of the 90 forms is 54.075 or 7x7.725.
It becomes immediately obvious that hidden below the surface are aspects of design that cannot be accidental or just coincidence. In fact, the Jewish Rabbis have a saying that "coincidence is not a kosher word." The Rabbis further believe that we will not completely understand the scriptures until the Messiah comes. However, when He does come, He will not only interpret each of the passages for us, but He will also interpret the very words themselves. More than this, He will interpret the very letters themselves and even the spaces between the letters!
Other implications.
There are words in the passage just described that occur nowhere else in the New Testament. They occur 42 times (7x6) and have 126 letters (7x18). How was this organized?
Even if Matthew contrived this characteristic into his gospel, how could he have known that these specific words whose sole characteristic is that they are found nowhere else in the New Testament, were not going to be used by the other writers? Unless we assume the absurd hypothesis that he had an agreement with them, he must have had the rest of the New Testament before him when he wrote his book. The Gospel of Matthew, then, must have been written last.
It so happens, however, that the Gospel of Mark exhibits the same phenomenon, which means that it would have had to been the last book written. But this same phenomenon is also found in Luke, John, James, Peter, Jude and Paul. Each of these would have had to have been written after all the others in order to contrive the vocabulary frequencies! We are indebted to the painstaking examinations and lifetime commitment of Dr. Ivan Panin for uncovering these amazing insights.
The epitaph on the cross of Jesus.
When Jesus was crucified, Pilate wrote a sign that was nailed to the cross. The particular wording he chose displeased the Jewish leadership and they asked him to change it, but he refused there request. John 19:19-22 reads "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS." This title was seen and read by many Jews because the place where Jesus was crucified was right outside the capitol city of Jerusalem. More than that, it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. "Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written." Pilate refused to revise the epitaph he had composed. This may have more significance than is apparent in our English translations.
In Hebrew this "title" which Pilate had written reads: Yeshua HaNazarei v Melech HaYehudim, meaning: Jesus the Nazarene and king of the Jews.
What we don't notice in the English translation is that the acronym of this title, which is made up of the first letter of each word, spells out Yahweh (YHWH). If Pilate had rewritten his title the way the Jewish leaders had requested, it wouldn't have spelled out the name of God. Did Pilate realize this? Did he do this deliberately, or was he ignorant of the significance of what he had done? Did he perhaps do it to upset the Jewish leadership, whom he realized were diligently seeking to have Jesus put to death? Or did he actually suspect that maybe Jesus was who He claimed to be? We will never know the answers to these questions, but that still doesn't change the fact that his title provided the acronym for the name of Israel's God.
It is clear to me that these kinds of signs clearly show us the fingerprint of God. No one else could have written so many books, with the same identical pattern. And when we look at the same kind of signs with prophecy, symbols, and chiasmus, it becomes even clearer that no man could have written this book.
But the Koran contains no prophecy. It has no miracles. It doesn't contain any symbols, no chiasmus, or hidden codes.
The only interesting thing about this book it is that, when it is read in the Arabic language, it sounds like beautiful poetry. However, one of the easier "gifts of the Spirit" for Satan to imitate is the gift of languages. In my opinion, the reason for this is simple. He doesn't know the future, so he can't prophesy. Although he can pretend to state a prophecy, especially if it's to take place way off in the future, his prophecies won't be fulfilled. And if that's the case, why even attempt to prophesy? He doesn't know anything about symbolism, because symbolism is the language of the Spirit of God, which he doesn't possess. Chiasmus, codes and Gematry can only occur when someone's mind is filled with divine inspiration. Satan could perform miracles, but not in the name of Jesus. So the only gift of the Spirit that he can most easily imitate is the gift of tongues.
But Paul gave us a warning about this when he wrote, "I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air..I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:.. In the law it is written, With [men of] other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying [serveth] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe." (1 Corinthians 14:5,6,8,9,14, 18, 21,22).
So if the gift of tongue is not accompanied with the gift of interpretation, it is useless and could cause all kinds of confusion.
All the truly great prophets, such as Moses, Elija, Elisha, and many others, performed great miracles. As Christians we believe that Jesus was the greatest of all the prophets and He performed the greatest miracles of all. Although He never did it for the purpose of gaining public attention, it nonetheless showed His divinity and authority. Yet, if Muhammad was the greatest of all prophets, as Muslims believe, how come he never performed any miracles?
Jesus said in the Bible that his signs would follow His disciples. In Mark 16:17,18 we read, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." It's obvious that Muhammad was not a follower of Jesus, nor did he ever claim to be. But he did teach that Jesus was a prophet. Then where are the signs of Muhammad's prophetic calling that Jesus, the prophet, said would follow those who believed in God?
Those who believe in Muhammad teach that he was the last prophet, and the reason why someone is considered a prophet is s usually because they prophesy of future events. Yet Muhammad did not make even one prophecy, so it seems a little strange to me how they can call him a prophet. I could understand why they would call him a great teacher, but for them to call him a prophet doesn't make sense to me.
And finally, the greatest gift that God has given man is the ability to choose for himself. We call this "free agency." Yet, according to the Islamic faith, especially when they have full governmental control over people, they forbid people to live as they want, More than that, they forbid the preaching of any other religion. Most Islamic nations have some of the poorest people and have some of the most restrictive and repressive governments in the world. A religion that is based on fear of retribution, that must enforce its rules by force and intimidation, and can only survive by eliminating all other faiths, in my opinion, is a religion that is too weak to stand on its own merits.
These are the reasons why I feel that the Islamic faith was inspired from an angel of light like Paul explained in Galatians 1:8 because its Gospel is clearly a different one.
If the tesimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy Revelation 19:10 then Muhammed didn't have it.
To determine whether the Koran is indeed the word of God, one thing we can do is to look for, what I call, the "fingerprint of God" in the Koran, which is easily found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. What I mean by this is that every writer has his own style, which distinguishes them from every other writer. And God is no different. To find the fingerprint of God we can look in many different places, such as in prophecy, symbolism, the numerical code, Gametria, others.
To understand the fingerprints of God concerning prophecy, I suggest you read my page entitled "The divine Prism," after that "Numbers, symbolism and prophecy" and next, "prophesies in names In my articles regarding numbers, I show several basic things which have been universally acknowledged as having a symbol. In these articles I've pointed out the basic meaning of numbers. Rather than go over this information again, in this article we will take a look the numeral "codes". We know that God works in intervals of seven (to show that something has been completed or fulfilled), but God also works in intervals of 50.
In his article, "Codes in the Torah," professor Daniel Michaelson wrote: "The number 50 has several important meanings in Judaism. Every fiftieth year is a Jubilee year; the Torah was given 50 days after the exodus from Egypt, and there are 50 gates of wisdom." A skeptical reader would say that all of this is nothing more than a coincidence, perhaps arguing that we would be able to find such a system in any book. Daniel Michaelsen addresses this idea, detailing the mathematical probability of these Torah codes and concludes that "the probability of such a coincidence is about ONE IN THREE MILLION.
"Computers have been used to decode this very interesting and intriguing code. For example, in 1982 Dr. Eli Rips of the Institute of Mathematics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem with others used computers to find meaningful words in the biblical text at equidistant intervals. As an example, the computer was asked to find all appearances of the word Israel in the first ten thousand letters of Genesis, at equal intervals ranging from 100 - to 100. The computer demonstrated that the word Israel is spelled out only twice, at interval of 7 and 50, in Genesis chapter one. The significance of this finding according to Michaelson is that: "These are exactly the four verses that constitute the Kiddush which we recite over a cup of wine every Friday night to sanctify the Sabbath.
"This is astounding because 7 and 50 are the only numbers related to Shabbat. Seven stands for both the Seventh day of creation and the seventh year of Shmita when the land rests. After seven shimita cycles the land rests also on the fiftieth year, the Jubilee year. Is this merely a coincidence? A simple calculation shows that the probability of the word Israel appearing once at a given interval in the above verses is about 1 in 100. The chance of two appearance at the interval of 7 and 50 either backwards of forwards is about 1 in 400,000. The name of Israel, found in code, at intervals which speak of resting the land on the seventh and fiftieth year! Why not an interval of 8 or 49?"
The skeptic believe in the power of chance.
From the Book "The Creator Beyond Time and Space" by Mark Eastman, he states, "The first 17 verses of the Gospel of Matthew are a logical unit, or section, which deals with a single principal subject: The genealogy of Jesus Christ. It contains 72 Greek vocabulary words in these initial 17 verses. The number of words which are nouns is exactly 56, or 7X8. The Greek word "the" occurs most frequently in the passage: exactly 56 times, or 7X8. Also, the number of different forms in which the article "the" occurs is exactly 7. There are two main sections in the passage: verse 1-11 and 12-17. In the first main section, the number of Greek vocabulary words used is 49. or 7 x7. Why not 48 or 50?
"Of these 49 words, the number of those beginning with a vowel is 28, or 7x4. The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7x3. The total numbers of letters in these 49 words is 266, or 7x38. The number of vowels among these 266 letters is 140, or 7x20. The number of consonants is 126, or 7x18. Of the 49 words, the number of words which occur more than once is 35, or 7x5. The number of words occurring only once is 14, or 7x2. The number of words which occur in only one form is exactly 42, or 7x6. the number of words appearing in more than one form is also 7.
"The number of the 49 Greek vocabulary words which are nouns is 42, or 7x6. The number of words which are not nouns is 7. Of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or exactly 7x5. These 35 names are used 63 times, or 7x9. The number of male names is 28,or 7x4. These male names occur 56 times, or 7x8. the number which are not male names is 7. Three women are mentioned Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. The number of Greek letters in these three names is 14, 7x2.. The number of compound nouns is 7, The number of Greek letters in these 7 nouns is 49 or 7x7 Only one city is mentioned in this passage, Babylon, which in Greek contains exactly 7 letters. And on it goes."
Gametria.
There are even more features in the numerical structure of the words themselves. As you may know, both Hebrew and Greek use the letters of the alphabet for numerical values, therefore, every word, in either Hebrew or Greek has a numeric value of its own by adding up the values of the letters in that particular word. The study of the numerical values of words is called gametria.
The 72 vocabulary words add up to a gametrical value of 42.364, or 7 x 6.052. If one Greek letter was changed, this would not happen. The 72 words appear in 90 forms, some appear in more than one form. The numeric value of the 90 forms is 54.075 or 7x7.725.
It becomes immediately obvious that hidden below the surface are aspects of design that cannot be accidental or just coincidence. In fact, the Jewish Rabbis have a saying that "coincidence is not a kosher word." The Rabbis further believe that we will not completely understand the scriptures until the Messiah comes. However, when He does come, He will not only interpret each of the passages for us, but He will also interpret the very words themselves. More than this, He will interpret the very letters themselves and even the spaces between the letters!
Other implications.
There are words in the passage just described that occur nowhere else in the New Testament. They occur 42 times (7x6) and have 126 letters (7x18). How was this organized?
Even if Matthew contrived this characteristic into his gospel, how could he have known that these specific words whose sole characteristic is that they are found nowhere else in the New Testament, were not going to be used by the other writers? Unless we assume the absurd hypothesis that he had an agreement with them, he must have had the rest of the New Testament before him when he wrote his book. The Gospel of Matthew, then, must have been written last.
It so happens, however, that the Gospel of Mark exhibits the same phenomenon, which means that it would have had to been the last book written. But this same phenomenon is also found in Luke, John, James, Peter, Jude and Paul. Each of these would have had to have been written after all the others in order to contrive the vocabulary frequencies! We are indebted to the painstaking examinations and lifetime commitment of Dr. Ivan Panin for uncovering these amazing insights.
The epitaph on the cross of Jesus.
When Jesus was crucified, Pilate wrote a sign that was nailed to the cross. The particular wording he chose displeased the Jewish leadership and they asked him to change it, but he refused there request. John 19:19-22 reads "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS." This title was seen and read by many Jews because the place where Jesus was crucified was right outside the capitol city of Jerusalem. More than that, it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. "Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written." Pilate refused to revise the epitaph he had composed. This may have more significance than is apparent in our English translations.
In Hebrew this "title" which Pilate had written reads: Yeshua HaNazarei v Melech HaYehudim, meaning: Jesus the Nazarene and king of the Jews.
What we don't notice in the English translation is that the acronym of this title, which is made up of the first letter of each word, spells out Yahweh (YHWH). If Pilate had rewritten his title the way the Jewish leaders had requested, it wouldn't have spelled out the name of God. Did Pilate realize this? Did he do this deliberately, or was he ignorant of the significance of what he had done? Did he perhaps do it to upset the Jewish leadership, whom he realized were diligently seeking to have Jesus put to death? Or did he actually suspect that maybe Jesus was who He claimed to be? We will never know the answers to these questions, but that still doesn't change the fact that his title provided the acronym for the name of Israel's God.
It is clear to me that these kinds of signs clearly show us the fingerprint of God. No one else could have written so many books, with the same identical pattern. And when we look at the same kind of signs with prophecy, symbols, and chiasmus, it becomes even clearer that no man could have written this book.
But the Koran contains no prophecy. It has no miracles. It doesn't contain any symbols, no chiasmus, or hidden codes.
The only interesting thing about this book it is that, when it is read in the Arabic language, it sounds like beautiful poetry. However, one of the easier "gifts of the Spirit" for Satan to imitate is the gift of languages. In my opinion, the reason for this is simple. He doesn't know the future, so he can't prophesy. Although he can pretend to state a prophecy, especially if it's to take place way off in the future, his prophecies won't be fulfilled. And if that's the case, why even attempt to prophesy? He doesn't know anything about symbolism, because symbolism is the language of the Spirit of God, which he doesn't possess. Chiasmus, codes and Gematry can only occur when someone's mind is filled with divine inspiration. Satan could perform miracles, but not in the name of Jesus. So the only gift of the Spirit that he can most easily imitate is the gift of tongues.
But Paul gave us a warning about this when he wrote, "I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air..I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:.. In the law it is written, With [men of] other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying [serveth] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe." (1 Corinthians 14:5,6,8,9,14, 18, 21,22).
So if the gift of tongue is not accompanied with the gift of interpretation, it is useless and could cause all kinds of confusion.
All the truly great prophets, such as Moses, Elija, Elisha, and many others, performed great miracles. As Christians we believe that Jesus was the greatest of all the prophets and He performed the greatest miracles of all. Although He never did it for the purpose of gaining public attention, it nonetheless showed His divinity and authority. Yet, if Muhammad was the greatest of all prophets, as Muslims believe, how come he never performed any miracles?
Jesus said in the Bible that his signs would follow His disciples. In Mark 16:17,18 we read, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." It's obvious that Muhammad was not a follower of Jesus, nor did he ever claim to be. But he did teach that Jesus was a prophet. Then where are the signs of Muhammad's prophetic calling that Jesus, the prophet, said would follow those who believed in God?
Those who believe in Muhammad teach that he was the last prophet, and the reason why someone is considered a prophet is s usually because they prophesy of future events. Yet Muhammad did not make even one prophecy, so it seems a little strange to me how they can call him a prophet. I could understand why they would call him a great teacher, but for them to call him a prophet doesn't make sense to me.
And finally, the greatest gift that God has given man is the ability to choose for himself. We call this "free agency." Yet, according to the Islamic faith, especially when they have full governmental control over people, they forbid people to live as they want, More than that, they forbid the preaching of any other religion. Most Islamic nations have some of the poorest people and have some of the most restrictive and repressive governments in the world. A religion that is based on fear of retribution, that must enforce its rules by force and intimidation, and can only survive by eliminating all other faiths, in my opinion, is a religion that is too weak to stand on its own merits.
These are the reasons why I feel that the Islamic faith was inspired from an angel of light like Paul explained in Galatians 1:8 because its Gospel is clearly a different one.
If the tesimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy Revelation 19:10 then Muhammed didn't have it.
Islam, Allah and Muhammad.
Islam, Allah and Muhammad.
Before I begin my talk on Islam I wish to point out several things. 1) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respect the faiths of all religions. 2) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that every religion has some truths within its doctrines. 3) Every religion teaches that we should love God and have respect for our fellow men.
Having said this. Let me explain why I am writing about the history of and the doctrinal teachings of Islam. The first reason is because there are similarities between our church and Islam. For example, both of them came into existence because of a book that was brought forth by an angel. For Mormons it was the angel Moroni. For Muslims it is the angel Gabriel, who is the same one who appeared to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
The second reason why I've decided to write this article is because Muslims teach that Jesus was just a prophet, even though they accept and believe in the Old and the New Testament which testifies that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Savior of the world.
The third reason why I am writing this is because Islam teaches that after the death of Muhammad there can not be any more prophets. More than that, they teach that Muhammad was the greatest prophets of all, even greater than the prophet Jesus.
It was Jesus who taught that we would be able to judge people by their fruits. I have to admit, that part of what has led me to write this article is because of the many acts of terrorism which have been carried out in the name of Islam. Having said this, I want to qualify my statement by saying we shouldn't judge a religion by the actions of a few fanatics who commit crimes in the name of their God. However, we can judge a religion by the doctrines they teach. Nevertheless, I have to admit that my interest in delving more deeply into the Muslim religion was a result of WTC attack. I find it very similar to the crusades where Christians, in the name of their God, fought another kind of "holy war" against Muslims. I understand that these latest terrorist attacks cannot be held against the leaders of the Islamic religion but are the results of fanatics.
I have read the Koran twice and I've found some very interesting passages, and also, in my opinion, some rather blasphemous verses. By blasphemous I don't mean that they were offensive, but because they deprived Jesus of His divine relationship with God, the Father, and His unique mission of salvation. But before we look at these issues, let me first present the historical background of Islam. The source of my information comes from the "The Book of Religions" by Jostein Gaarder, Victor Hellern, Henry Notaker, and Editor Neri Pozzam, entitled "WHAT DOES ISLAM MEAN?"
Islam was born in the Arabian peninsula and even now it is still strongly connected to the Arab culture, even though a minority of today's Muslims are Arabs. One of the reasons for this is because the sacred text of Muslim, the Koran, is written in Arabic. Islam is spread out in large regions of Asia and Africa and one-seventh of the world's population is Muslim. In fact, it is the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity.
The Arabic word "Islam" means "to submit." What this religion teaches is that we are to submit ourselves to the will of God in every area of life, whether it is social, cultural or religious. It is only by doing this that someone can be considered a Muslim, (which is another Arabic word with the same root as Islam). The interpretation of the law contained in the Koran is fundamental to this religion. In fact in the countries where Islam is the state religion, it is the judges who provide the religious leadership.
Muhammad
Before the time of Muhammad, the tribes which roamed the Arabian peninsula were heathen and divided. When Muhammad had his vision or experience with the angel Gabriel, he was forty years old. According to him, at that time he was illiterate. When Gabriel asked him to read the book which was presented to him, he answered, "I am not able to read." From this it seems apparent that he also never read the Bible. Gabriel told him, "Read in the name of your Lord! Who created mankind from a drop of blood...."
The word "read" in Arabic has the same root of "Koran" which means "reading." The Koran is a collection of revelations which Muhammad received. For the followers of Muhammad, this book is considered as sacred text because it is based on "divine" inspiration just like the Jews and Christians believe about the Bible. These "divine" revelations found in the Koran were put into writing for the first time after the death of Muhammad. The 114 chapters which make up the Koran, are not put in chronological order but by their length, from the longest revelation to the shortest, with the first chapter being the only exception.
It wasn't until after Muhammad had received his revelations from the angel Gabriel that he began to preach its doctrines to others. When he told people he was a prophet, they thought it was merely a ruse he had invented to help increase the political power of Mecca. Besides that, the local authorities were hostile to Muhammad's idea that there was just one God because they worshipped many gods. As a result, in Mecca, there was violent opposition to his teaching. After the death of his wife and his uncle in 622 AD, Muhammad left Mecca and went to the city of Medina where he was received by its people. Although Muhammad had broken his ties with his own community and family, he felt more like Abraham when left he his country because God had told him to do so.
After the death of Muhammad his followers were in conflict over how to proceed. In the beginning, the Muslims were split into several groups, each with their own leader. Three of these leaders were among Muhammad's first disciples. The fourth leader was a man by the name of Ali, who was a cousin of Muhammad and was also his son-in-law because he married Muhammad's daughter Fatima. Many said that Ali was the natural successor of Muhammad and his denomination (as we call it - or "party" as they call it) was known as SHI' AT ALI. Today it is called the SHI'A party and is found mostly in Iran. But Ali had his enemies within the Muslim world who eventually were successful in killing him. This division of Islam came about, not because of a difference in doctrine, but because of the desire for power. The SHI'A believed that the leader should be a descendant of the prophet, Muhammad, while the Sunniti party believed that the leadership should go to whoever had the most power.
After the death of Ali' the capital city of the Muslim world was Damascus but eventually the seat of power was transferred to Baghdad where it stayed for about 500 years. After that, when the religious leader was also the leader of Turkey, the capital city of the Muslim world became Istanbul where it remained for more than a century. However, after 1924 the Muslim religion no longer had a supreme ruler as it once did.
Doctrine
The profession of faith is quite simple and very clear: There is no other God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet. The Arabic word for "God" is "Allah." Islam teaches that Allah gave His words to mankind by His prophet Muhammad. Although they believe that God had sent prophets before the time of Muhammad, such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus, they believe that Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet of all. In the beginning Muhammad considered himself to be a prophet in the tradition of the Jews and Christians, but after a while he had a change of mind. The Jews disagreed with his interpretation of the historical parts of the Old Testament, and he felt his ideas were right. In his mind, since his revelations were the word of God, therefore it was the Jews who were in error. To create an historical base to his new religion, Muhammad went back to the story of Abraham and Ishmael, from whom the Arabic people are descendant. Muhammad said that Abraham and Ishmael had rebuilt the sanctuary Ka'ba, that Adam made in the very beginning, but was destroyed in the flood. According to Muhammad the Jews and the Christians had changed the correct knowledge of Abraham. When Muhammad first went to Medina, he introduced the practice of praying toward Jerusalem, but after his argument with the Jews regarding the Old Testament he changed his mind and taught his disciples to pray toward Mecca. Another change he made was that instead of observing the Sabbath day on Saturday, as the Jews did, or on Sunday, as the Christians did, he taught people to observed Friday as the Sabbath day. When it came to the teaching of Christianity, Muhammad disagreed with them on the idea of the Trinity. As far as he was concerned, this concept was a form of polytheism.
To someone of the Muslim faith, the Koran is the word of God in a pure and literal sense. To illustrate what I mean, in Christianity we believe that Jesus, "the word [of God], became flesh" and lived among us. As such, God's revelation to man came through and by Jesus Himself. However, in Islam, Muhammad is only the means through which God's revelation came to man. As such, the true revelation of God is not found in the man Muhammad, but is contained in the Koran. In Christianity we consider the man Jesus to be "the word of God," but in Islam the word of God is found in a book. Therefore it is not correct to compare Jesus to Muhammad and the Bible with the Koran. It is more correct to say that Jesus is the parallel to the Koran.
Also, offering a sacrifice has a different meaning in Islam. In Islam an animal is killed as a sacrifice, but it is done to remind a Muslim of the principle of obedience, just as Abraham showed his obedience to God by offering up his own son, which they say was Ishmael, not Isaac.
WOMEN IN ISLAM
Concerning the position of women, there are two different verses in the Koran which seem to contradict themselves. One reads, "Men are absolute leaders of women, because of the preference which Allah gives to them" (Chapter 4, 34) However, another verse reads that women must have the same rights of men (Chapter 2, 228). There are different laws which define the relationship of men and women in different social situations., and in marriage there are several laws which protect women. For example, women can only have just one man, but men can practice polygamy. Today polygamy is forbidden in Turkey and Tunisia. Divorce is possible but only men can decide it. Then there are other rules and conditions which make it impossible to divorce a spouse at anytime. According to Muhammad, divorce is something which the law allows but that God is not in favor of. Man has the right to spank and beat his wife if she is disobedient "admonish those you think they could be disobedient, leave them alone in their beds, beat them up." (chapter 4).
All these things are mentioned in the book I referred to earlier, rather than from my own experience. However, I will express my own opinion from what I have read in the Koran concerning its doctrine. I had read the Koran eight years ago and I am reading it again in order to gain a better comprehension of it. I want to say from the outset that my understanding of their doctrines comes from the viewpoint of a Christian and a belief in the Bible as the word of God.
Concerning the Bible, both the Koran and Muhammad affirmed that Moses and Abraham were prophets and they received the Law from God and that the law was true. The Koran also affirms that Jesus was a great prophet sent by God. Therefore, they believe that even the New Testament was inspired of God. Nevertheless, both Muhammad and the Koran have a different view than Christians concerning some of the most important historical and doctrinal facts contained in the Bible.
If it is true that God can not teach both truth and also lie, then it is important for us to determine which book contains the truth and which does not contain the truth. Although I feel that Muhammad had good intentions, I also feel that, like Eve, he was beguiled, or deceived in the beginning by some being claiming to be an angel from God, as Paul warned us about in Galatians.
Scriptures are important but without the Holy Ghost to guide us they can divide us more than unite us, especially over doctrine. Scriptures were given by the inspiration of God and they can only be understood by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is interesting to note that since Muhammad told Gabriel that he could not read, that means he had never read the Bible. Perhaps somebody had read it to him but that is not the same as being able to study it. The point I wish to make is that we are suppose to believe that an angel appeared to a person who had no knowledge concerning the Law or the ancient prophets of God and yet gave him the clearest understanding of the Law and he became the greatest of all prophets. Although this might have happened, I find it a rather curious claim. We will assume, for the sake of this discussion, that Muhammad was naturally pure in heart and therefore worthy to receive a visit from an angel of God, but even if that did happen, his teachings would have to agree with all the other prophets of God as recorded in both the Old and New testament. However, it is clear that his writings and those of the Bible differ sharply in numerous places.
But there is another problem. The history of Islam is clear on the point that before the death of Muhammad, there were no written collections of his revelations. In fact, during his life he continued to receive new revelations, which added to the ones he had already been given. All of this leaves us to wonder if most of the Koran was written as they were originally deliver to Muhammad. During the first part of his ministry, the sermons of Muhammad were kept mostly in the memory of his followers. It is only reasonable to assume that his disciples only became aware of the importance of writing down these revelations at a later time, which means that a large number of them, especially the older ones, would be lost. When the disciples did feel it their duty to put in writing these revelations, they used anything at their disposal, such as bones, leaves of Palm, stones, etc.
How the Koran came to us
Between 610 and 632 AD Muhammad received his revelations from Gabriel. His followers at first memorized these revelations, and later, as I have already mentioned, they wrote them down on anything that was available. Because of this, instead of there being just one book, there were numerous collections with different readings and traditions attributed to Muhammad. One tradition says that when Muhammad had a revelation he gave it as soon as he could in a meeting of men and then afterwards in a meeting for women. We know that Muhammad asked his followers to memorize his revelations, because of what the tradition says, but the history of the first writing of the Koran is unclear and confused.
It seems that after his death people discovered some papers where on was written some chapters of the Koran. However, these couldn't have been written by Muhammad because he didn't know how to write. Therefore, we are not sure who wrote these chapters. According to tradition, Abubakr, one of the leaders, called Zayd Ibn Thabit, who was the scribe of Muhammad and gave him the task of gathering all the various wirings together and copied them on paper. Rather than rely on his memory, he asked the followers of Muhammad to bring him the copies which they possessed which had been approved by Muhammad. In this way he was able to determine what the correct wording was for each of the verses.
Analysis of some verse of the Koran
Chapter 2 verses 4 and 5 states that the message which was given to Muhammad was the same as that which was given to the prophets of God in ancient times. Furthermore, these same revelations were give to Moses as scripture, which then became God's law to mankind.
Since God had delivered the law to Moses, who then gave it to the children of Israel, it seems clear that they were the chosen people of God. .However, Israel was not a descendant of Ishmael. Yet the Bible clearly states that the chosen people were from the seed of Isaac. In chapter 4, verse 83 it confirms that the Bible is God's word. Furthermore, in verse 87 of chapter 4 it states that God revealed the law to Moses and that after him God revealed it to other prophets. Yet all of these people were of the lineage of Isaac, not Ishmael.
The Bible states that the Sabbath day was to be the seventh day of the week, which is Saturday. Yet, according to the Koran, it states that the day we should rest from our labors is Friday, however, it doesn't provide any explanation why that day is more important than all the others or why it was changed from the seventh day.
Also, according to the Koran, it states that Ishmael and his seed are the chosen people, but the Bible declares this blessing was given to Isaac. Furthermore, the Koran states that tithing is 2.5% of a person's increase, rather than 10% as the Bible states. The Koran also teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, but, instead was merely just of the many prophets whom God sent to man. Because of that, they do not believe that Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins, but claim he died by natural causes. That also means they deny His resurrection from the grave All of this leads me to conclude that the Koran, rather than confirming the words of the prophets as found in the Old and New testament, actually contradicts them.
Jesus taught that we should love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. However, the Koran says just the opposite. In verses 178-179 it states that men of faith should apply the law of an eye for an eye. In verses 190-194 it says that we should fight to the death in preserving the path which God has shown us. It further states that we should fight against those who fight us, and counsels the faithful to kill everyone who fight against them. However, it also adds that if the enemies of God stop their hostilities, then we are to stop fighting against them because God will forgive them because He is a God of mercy. But if they are stubborn and will not stop their hostilities, then we should fight them until there is no more rebellion against God's ways. Under the law of an eye for eye, we are required to treat people the same way they treat us.
In chapter 3 verse 67 it states that Abraham was not a Hebrew. Instead it says he was a Muslim. It seems that Muhammad can arbitrarily decide someone's lineage. The Bible clearly states that Abraham was a Hebrew. He was from the seed of Eber, and his name is even from the Hebrew language.
Verse 84 states that they believe in what God revealed to Abraham (which was part of the law) and who then passed this knowledge onto Ishmael (although we don't have any record of it). It also states that they believe what God told Jacob and his children, including Moses and Jesus.
Verse 85 states that all who believe in another religion other than what Muhammad taught won't go to heaven. However, although they claim to accept the Bible, there is no mention about the "Islam" religion in it. In fact, Paul taught that the Law of Moses was a schoolteacher to bring us to Christ.
Chapter 4 verse 157-158 asks the question: Have they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, prophet of God? No they didn't kill him. They didn't crucify him, because somebody else took his place. This other person had the same likeness of him. He who is discussing this is in doubt; he is just guessing. In reality they didn't kill him. God saved him.
In my opinion this is a blasphemous statement, at least for Christians, because it not only deprives Jesus of the atonement which He offered for the sins of the world and the reality of His resurrection, but it makes Him a coward and a liar. According to this verse, Jesus allowed another person, who resembled him, to take his place, while he was hiding. And yet they still claim that He was a prophet of God. What man of God would behave like that?
Also, if we consider this incident from another perspective, we could ask, Who was the person who gave his life for Jesus? I would gladly give my life for Jesus if I believed He was my Savior, but I can't imagine someone giving their life for a false prophet who tried to convince people that he was the Messiah when he wasn't. More than this, it would have required all the apostles to be in on this lie, because they were the ones who testified to the world that Jesus had been resurrected. If this didn't really happen, as the Koran claim, then they too are all liars. Yet, each of them gave their life rather than renounce their testimony. Perhaps someone who is mentally incompetent might go to their death to perpetrate a hoax, but not twelve men (including the man who supposedly died on the cross in place of Jesus).
Muhammad claimed that Jesus was a prophet of God, yet the whole gospel which Jesus preached was based on the atonement which He made on the cross and His resurrection from the grave. Without these events, the message which Jesus taught and His disciples proclaimed to the world is useless. Either Jesus was a prophet of God or He was a liar. That means, either He is the Son of God and the Savior of all of mankind, as He claimed, or He is a phony, a charlatan, an imposter, and a fraud. And if that's the case, He couldn't be a prophet of God. So either way, Muhammad has got it wrong about Jesus.
Before I begin my talk on Islam I wish to point out several things. 1) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respect the faiths of all religions. 2) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that every religion has some truths within its doctrines. 3) Every religion teaches that we should love God and have respect for our fellow men.
Having said this. Let me explain why I am writing about the history of and the doctrinal teachings of Islam. The first reason is because there are similarities between our church and Islam. For example, both of them came into existence because of a book that was brought forth by an angel. For Mormons it was the angel Moroni. For Muslims it is the angel Gabriel, who is the same one who appeared to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
The second reason why I've decided to write this article is because Muslims teach that Jesus was just a prophet, even though they accept and believe in the Old and the New Testament which testifies that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Savior of the world.
The third reason why I am writing this is because Islam teaches that after the death of Muhammad there can not be any more prophets. More than that, they teach that Muhammad was the greatest prophets of all, even greater than the prophet Jesus.
It was Jesus who taught that we would be able to judge people by their fruits. I have to admit, that part of what has led me to write this article is because of the many acts of terrorism which have been carried out in the name of Islam. Having said this, I want to qualify my statement by saying we shouldn't judge a religion by the actions of a few fanatics who commit crimes in the name of their God. However, we can judge a religion by the doctrines they teach. Nevertheless, I have to admit that my interest in delving more deeply into the Muslim religion was a result of WTC attack. I find it very similar to the crusades where Christians, in the name of their God, fought another kind of "holy war" against Muslims. I understand that these latest terrorist attacks cannot be held against the leaders of the Islamic religion but are the results of fanatics.
I have read the Koran twice and I've found some very interesting passages, and also, in my opinion, some rather blasphemous verses. By blasphemous I don't mean that they were offensive, but because they deprived Jesus of His divine relationship with God, the Father, and His unique mission of salvation. But before we look at these issues, let me first present the historical background of Islam. The source of my information comes from the "The Book of Religions" by Jostein Gaarder, Victor Hellern, Henry Notaker, and Editor Neri Pozzam, entitled "WHAT DOES ISLAM MEAN?"
Islam was born in the Arabian peninsula and even now it is still strongly connected to the Arab culture, even though a minority of today's Muslims are Arabs. One of the reasons for this is because the sacred text of Muslim, the Koran, is written in Arabic. Islam is spread out in large regions of Asia and Africa and one-seventh of the world's population is Muslim. In fact, it is the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity.
The Arabic word "Islam" means "to submit." What this religion teaches is that we are to submit ourselves to the will of God in every area of life, whether it is social, cultural or religious. It is only by doing this that someone can be considered a Muslim, (which is another Arabic word with the same root as Islam). The interpretation of the law contained in the Koran is fundamental to this religion. In fact in the countries where Islam is the state religion, it is the judges who provide the religious leadership.
Muhammad
Before the time of Muhammad, the tribes which roamed the Arabian peninsula were heathen and divided. When Muhammad had his vision or experience with the angel Gabriel, he was forty years old. According to him, at that time he was illiterate. When Gabriel asked him to read the book which was presented to him, he answered, "I am not able to read." From this it seems apparent that he also never read the Bible. Gabriel told him, "Read in the name of your Lord! Who created mankind from a drop of blood...."
The word "read" in Arabic has the same root of "Koran" which means "reading." The Koran is a collection of revelations which Muhammad received. For the followers of Muhammad, this book is considered as sacred text because it is based on "divine" inspiration just like the Jews and Christians believe about the Bible. These "divine" revelations found in the Koran were put into writing for the first time after the death of Muhammad. The 114 chapters which make up the Koran, are not put in chronological order but by their length, from the longest revelation to the shortest, with the first chapter being the only exception.
It wasn't until after Muhammad had received his revelations from the angel Gabriel that he began to preach its doctrines to others. When he told people he was a prophet, they thought it was merely a ruse he had invented to help increase the political power of Mecca. Besides that, the local authorities were hostile to Muhammad's idea that there was just one God because they worshipped many gods. As a result, in Mecca, there was violent opposition to his teaching. After the death of his wife and his uncle in 622 AD, Muhammad left Mecca and went to the city of Medina where he was received by its people. Although Muhammad had broken his ties with his own community and family, he felt more like Abraham when left he his country because God had told him to do so.
After the death of Muhammad his followers were in conflict over how to proceed. In the beginning, the Muslims were split into several groups, each with their own leader. Three of these leaders were among Muhammad's first disciples. The fourth leader was a man by the name of Ali, who was a cousin of Muhammad and was also his son-in-law because he married Muhammad's daughter Fatima. Many said that Ali was the natural successor of Muhammad and his denomination (as we call it - or "party" as they call it) was known as SHI' AT ALI. Today it is called the SHI'A party and is found mostly in Iran. But Ali had his enemies within the Muslim world who eventually were successful in killing him. This division of Islam came about, not because of a difference in doctrine, but because of the desire for power. The SHI'A believed that the leader should be a descendant of the prophet, Muhammad, while the Sunniti party believed that the leadership should go to whoever had the most power.
After the death of Ali' the capital city of the Muslim world was Damascus but eventually the seat of power was transferred to Baghdad where it stayed for about 500 years. After that, when the religious leader was also the leader of Turkey, the capital city of the Muslim world became Istanbul where it remained for more than a century. However, after 1924 the Muslim religion no longer had a supreme ruler as it once did.
Doctrine
The profession of faith is quite simple and very clear: There is no other God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet. The Arabic word for "God" is "Allah." Islam teaches that Allah gave His words to mankind by His prophet Muhammad. Although they believe that God had sent prophets before the time of Muhammad, such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus, they believe that Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet of all. In the beginning Muhammad considered himself to be a prophet in the tradition of the Jews and Christians, but after a while he had a change of mind. The Jews disagreed with his interpretation of the historical parts of the Old Testament, and he felt his ideas were right. In his mind, since his revelations were the word of God, therefore it was the Jews who were in error. To create an historical base to his new religion, Muhammad went back to the story of Abraham and Ishmael, from whom the Arabic people are descendant. Muhammad said that Abraham and Ishmael had rebuilt the sanctuary Ka'ba, that Adam made in the very beginning, but was destroyed in the flood. According to Muhammad the Jews and the Christians had changed the correct knowledge of Abraham. When Muhammad first went to Medina, he introduced the practice of praying toward Jerusalem, but after his argument with the Jews regarding the Old Testament he changed his mind and taught his disciples to pray toward Mecca. Another change he made was that instead of observing the Sabbath day on Saturday, as the Jews did, or on Sunday, as the Christians did, he taught people to observed Friday as the Sabbath day. When it came to the teaching of Christianity, Muhammad disagreed with them on the idea of the Trinity. As far as he was concerned, this concept was a form of polytheism.
To someone of the Muslim faith, the Koran is the word of God in a pure and literal sense. To illustrate what I mean, in Christianity we believe that Jesus, "the word [of God], became flesh" and lived among us. As such, God's revelation to man came through and by Jesus Himself. However, in Islam, Muhammad is only the means through which God's revelation came to man. As such, the true revelation of God is not found in the man Muhammad, but is contained in the Koran. In Christianity we consider the man Jesus to be "the word of God," but in Islam the word of God is found in a book. Therefore it is not correct to compare Jesus to Muhammad and the Bible with the Koran. It is more correct to say that Jesus is the parallel to the Koran.
Also, offering a sacrifice has a different meaning in Islam. In Islam an animal is killed as a sacrifice, but it is done to remind a Muslim of the principle of obedience, just as Abraham showed his obedience to God by offering up his own son, which they say was Ishmael, not Isaac.
WOMEN IN ISLAM
Concerning the position of women, there are two different verses in the Koran which seem to contradict themselves. One reads, "Men are absolute leaders of women, because of the preference which Allah gives to them" (Chapter 4, 34) However, another verse reads that women must have the same rights of men (Chapter 2, 228). There are different laws which define the relationship of men and women in different social situations., and in marriage there are several laws which protect women. For example, women can only have just one man, but men can practice polygamy. Today polygamy is forbidden in Turkey and Tunisia. Divorce is possible but only men can decide it. Then there are other rules and conditions which make it impossible to divorce a spouse at anytime. According to Muhammad, divorce is something which the law allows but that God is not in favor of. Man has the right to spank and beat his wife if she is disobedient "admonish those you think they could be disobedient, leave them alone in their beds, beat them up." (chapter 4).
All these things are mentioned in the book I referred to earlier, rather than from my own experience. However, I will express my own opinion from what I have read in the Koran concerning its doctrine. I had read the Koran eight years ago and I am reading it again in order to gain a better comprehension of it. I want to say from the outset that my understanding of their doctrines comes from the viewpoint of a Christian and a belief in the Bible as the word of God.
Concerning the Bible, both the Koran and Muhammad affirmed that Moses and Abraham were prophets and they received the Law from God and that the law was true. The Koran also affirms that Jesus was a great prophet sent by God. Therefore, they believe that even the New Testament was inspired of God. Nevertheless, both Muhammad and the Koran have a different view than Christians concerning some of the most important historical and doctrinal facts contained in the Bible.
If it is true that God can not teach both truth and also lie, then it is important for us to determine which book contains the truth and which does not contain the truth. Although I feel that Muhammad had good intentions, I also feel that, like Eve, he was beguiled, or deceived in the beginning by some being claiming to be an angel from God, as Paul warned us about in Galatians.
Scriptures are important but without the Holy Ghost to guide us they can divide us more than unite us, especially over doctrine. Scriptures were given by the inspiration of God and they can only be understood by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is interesting to note that since Muhammad told Gabriel that he could not read, that means he had never read the Bible. Perhaps somebody had read it to him but that is not the same as being able to study it. The point I wish to make is that we are suppose to believe that an angel appeared to a person who had no knowledge concerning the Law or the ancient prophets of God and yet gave him the clearest understanding of the Law and he became the greatest of all prophets. Although this might have happened, I find it a rather curious claim. We will assume, for the sake of this discussion, that Muhammad was naturally pure in heart and therefore worthy to receive a visit from an angel of God, but even if that did happen, his teachings would have to agree with all the other prophets of God as recorded in both the Old and New testament. However, it is clear that his writings and those of the Bible differ sharply in numerous places.
But there is another problem. The history of Islam is clear on the point that before the death of Muhammad, there were no written collections of his revelations. In fact, during his life he continued to receive new revelations, which added to the ones he had already been given. All of this leaves us to wonder if most of the Koran was written as they were originally deliver to Muhammad. During the first part of his ministry, the sermons of Muhammad were kept mostly in the memory of his followers. It is only reasonable to assume that his disciples only became aware of the importance of writing down these revelations at a later time, which means that a large number of them, especially the older ones, would be lost. When the disciples did feel it their duty to put in writing these revelations, they used anything at their disposal, such as bones, leaves of Palm, stones, etc.
How the Koran came to us
Between 610 and 632 AD Muhammad received his revelations from Gabriel. His followers at first memorized these revelations, and later, as I have already mentioned, they wrote them down on anything that was available. Because of this, instead of there being just one book, there were numerous collections with different readings and traditions attributed to Muhammad. One tradition says that when Muhammad had a revelation he gave it as soon as he could in a meeting of men and then afterwards in a meeting for women. We know that Muhammad asked his followers to memorize his revelations, because of what the tradition says, but the history of the first writing of the Koran is unclear and confused.
It seems that after his death people discovered some papers where on was written some chapters of the Koran. However, these couldn't have been written by Muhammad because he didn't know how to write. Therefore, we are not sure who wrote these chapters. According to tradition, Abubakr, one of the leaders, called Zayd Ibn Thabit, who was the scribe of Muhammad and gave him the task of gathering all the various wirings together and copied them on paper. Rather than rely on his memory, he asked the followers of Muhammad to bring him the copies which they possessed which had been approved by Muhammad. In this way he was able to determine what the correct wording was for each of the verses.
Analysis of some verse of the Koran
Chapter 2 verses 4 and 5 states that the message which was given to Muhammad was the same as that which was given to the prophets of God in ancient times. Furthermore, these same revelations were give to Moses as scripture, which then became God's law to mankind.
Since God had delivered the law to Moses, who then gave it to the children of Israel, it seems clear that they were the chosen people of God. .However, Israel was not a descendant of Ishmael. Yet the Bible clearly states that the chosen people were from the seed of Isaac. In chapter 4, verse 83 it confirms that the Bible is God's word. Furthermore, in verse 87 of chapter 4 it states that God revealed the law to Moses and that after him God revealed it to other prophets. Yet all of these people were of the lineage of Isaac, not Ishmael.
The Bible states that the Sabbath day was to be the seventh day of the week, which is Saturday. Yet, according to the Koran, it states that the day we should rest from our labors is Friday, however, it doesn't provide any explanation why that day is more important than all the others or why it was changed from the seventh day.
Also, according to the Koran, it states that Ishmael and his seed are the chosen people, but the Bible declares this blessing was given to Isaac. Furthermore, the Koran states that tithing is 2.5% of a person's increase, rather than 10% as the Bible states. The Koran also teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, but, instead was merely just of the many prophets whom God sent to man. Because of that, they do not believe that Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins, but claim he died by natural causes. That also means they deny His resurrection from the grave All of this leads me to conclude that the Koran, rather than confirming the words of the prophets as found in the Old and New testament, actually contradicts them.
Jesus taught that we should love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. However, the Koran says just the opposite. In verses 178-179 it states that men of faith should apply the law of an eye for an eye. In verses 190-194 it says that we should fight to the death in preserving the path which God has shown us. It further states that we should fight against those who fight us, and counsels the faithful to kill everyone who fight against them. However, it also adds that if the enemies of God stop their hostilities, then we are to stop fighting against them because God will forgive them because He is a God of mercy. But if they are stubborn and will not stop their hostilities, then we should fight them until there is no more rebellion against God's ways. Under the law of an eye for eye, we are required to treat people the same way they treat us.
In chapter 3 verse 67 it states that Abraham was not a Hebrew. Instead it says he was a Muslim. It seems that Muhammad can arbitrarily decide someone's lineage. The Bible clearly states that Abraham was a Hebrew. He was from the seed of Eber, and his name is even from the Hebrew language.
Verse 84 states that they believe in what God revealed to Abraham (which was part of the law) and who then passed this knowledge onto Ishmael (although we don't have any record of it). It also states that they believe what God told Jacob and his children, including Moses and Jesus.
Verse 85 states that all who believe in another religion other than what Muhammad taught won't go to heaven. However, although they claim to accept the Bible, there is no mention about the "Islam" religion in it. In fact, Paul taught that the Law of Moses was a schoolteacher to bring us to Christ.
Chapter 4 verse 157-158 asks the question: Have they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, prophet of God? No they didn't kill him. They didn't crucify him, because somebody else took his place. This other person had the same likeness of him. He who is discussing this is in doubt; he is just guessing. In reality they didn't kill him. God saved him.
In my opinion this is a blasphemous statement, at least for Christians, because it not only deprives Jesus of the atonement which He offered for the sins of the world and the reality of His resurrection, but it makes Him a coward and a liar. According to this verse, Jesus allowed another person, who resembled him, to take his place, while he was hiding. And yet they still claim that He was a prophet of God. What man of God would behave like that?
Also, if we consider this incident from another perspective, we could ask, Who was the person who gave his life for Jesus? I would gladly give my life for Jesus if I believed He was my Savior, but I can't imagine someone giving their life for a false prophet who tried to convince people that he was the Messiah when he wasn't. More than this, it would have required all the apostles to be in on this lie, because they were the ones who testified to the world that Jesus had been resurrected. If this didn't really happen, as the Koran claim, then they too are all liars. Yet, each of them gave their life rather than renounce their testimony. Perhaps someone who is mentally incompetent might go to their death to perpetrate a hoax, but not twelve men (including the man who supposedly died on the cross in place of Jesus).
Muhammad claimed that Jesus was a prophet of God, yet the whole gospel which Jesus preached was based on the atonement which He made on the cross and His resurrection from the grave. Without these events, the message which Jesus taught and His disciples proclaimed to the world is useless. Either Jesus was a prophet of God or He was a liar. That means, either He is the Son of God and the Savior of all of mankind, as He claimed, or He is a phony, a charlatan, an imposter, and a fraud. And if that's the case, He couldn't be a prophet of God. So either way, Muhammad has got it wrong about Jesus.
Maybe Muhammad didn't understand this point, having never read the Bible, that the whole thing, the whole Gospel is base on the atonement, foreseen from the very beginning (foreordained before of the foundation of the world) and His personal resurrection, without them the Gospel is useless and would change prophesies in lies.
The Bible tells us that the apostles personally witnessed the resurrected Jesus. But besides them, He was seen by 500 people. The apostle Paul also saw the risen Savior. According to the Bible, all of these men endured terrible persecutions. In the book of Revelation, the apostle John saw the resurrected Jesus Christ in all of His divine glory. If none of this is true, how can Muhammad say that the New Testament is God's word? It is obvious to me that Muhammad knew nothing about these scriptures when he made such a statement.
According to chapter 5 verse 155, the law that was given to Moses was PERFECT SCRIPTURE. If that is true, that means that the commandment to keep the Sabbath on the seventh day is likewise a perfect law. Yet, as I have already pointed out, Muhammad changed the Sabbath to Friday without giving any reason for doing so. If the law Moses received was perfect then there can be no justification for changing it, yet that is exactly what Muhammad did.
As we have already seen, the Koran allows the husband to beat his wife. Yet, the Bible tells us to love our wives just like Jesus loved the Church and gave His life for it. Again, how can Muhammad say that the Bible and the Koran are both the word of God when they say opposite things?
In chapter 61 verse 6 Jesus, the son of Mary, announced: "Children of Israel, verily I am a prophet of God. I came to confirm what was revealed before me in the Old Testament, I came to bring the good news that a prophet will come after me: his name will be Muhammad." Yet the Bible makes no mention of this. Instead, it states that Jesus proclaimed that after He had gone, the Holy Ghost would come to teach and remind people all the things He taught them. Some Muslims say that when Jesus was speaking about the Holy Ghost, in reality, He was speaking about Muhammad. However, the Bible contradicts such a claim, because Peter explained that the scriptures came from the Holy Ghost. For the Muslims to be correct in their interpretations, we would have to say that Muhammad is the author of the entire New Testament. Furthermore, Paul explained that it is by the Holy Ghost that prophets spoke through men to reveal the things of God. If we are to follow the logic of Muslims, we would have to say that it was Muhammad who spoke through the prophets, even though all of this happened more than 600 years before he was born!
The Bible tells us that the apostles personally witnessed the resurrected Jesus. But besides them, He was seen by 500 people. The apostle Paul also saw the risen Savior. According to the Bible, all of these men endured terrible persecutions. In the book of Revelation, the apostle John saw the resurrected Jesus Christ in all of His divine glory. If none of this is true, how can Muhammad say that the New Testament is God's word? It is obvious to me that Muhammad knew nothing about these scriptures when he made such a statement.
According to chapter 5 verse 155, the law that was given to Moses was PERFECT SCRIPTURE. If that is true, that means that the commandment to keep the Sabbath on the seventh day is likewise a perfect law. Yet, as I have already pointed out, Muhammad changed the Sabbath to Friday without giving any reason for doing so. If the law Moses received was perfect then there can be no justification for changing it, yet that is exactly what Muhammad did.
As we have already seen, the Koran allows the husband to beat his wife. Yet, the Bible tells us to love our wives just like Jesus loved the Church and gave His life for it. Again, how can Muhammad say that the Bible and the Koran are both the word of God when they say opposite things?
In chapter 61 verse 6 Jesus, the son of Mary, announced: "Children of Israel, verily I am a prophet of God. I came to confirm what was revealed before me in the Old Testament, I came to bring the good news that a prophet will come after me: his name will be Muhammad." Yet the Bible makes no mention of this. Instead, it states that Jesus proclaimed that after He had gone, the Holy Ghost would come to teach and remind people all the things He taught them. Some Muslims say that when Jesus was speaking about the Holy Ghost, in reality, He was speaking about Muhammad. However, the Bible contradicts such a claim, because Peter explained that the scriptures came from the Holy Ghost. For the Muslims to be correct in their interpretations, we would have to say that Muhammad is the author of the entire New Testament. Furthermore, Paul explained that it is by the Holy Ghost that prophets spoke through men to reveal the things of God. If we are to follow the logic of Muslims, we would have to say that it was Muhammad who spoke through the prophets, even though all of this happened more than 600 years before he was born!
If we read John 16:7-14
It is clear that the Holy Ghost would have glorified Jesus and would have given His words and teachings, well I would say that to think that Muhammad was the Holy Ghost, it is just a minestrone without any sense
Why the Muslim believe this "Dogma"? Simple, because an unknown author (think about it) of the Barnabas' Gospel (think about it) made a change of wovels in the Greek text of the John's Gospel. Practically, according to this unknown author Jesus would have announced the coming of the PERIKLUTOS ( A SUPER PRAISED) and not a PARAKLETOS (Lawyer) and so the Muslim accept the Bible, but are taking a clue from a book which is not included in the Bible, so what is clear in the Bible should be trow away just because the unknown author of the Gospel of Barnaba, probably made a mistake in copying the text. Anyway according to the Bible they still would be short of a second witness because the law of the Bible WANTS at least two KNOWN WITNESSES.
Now that we have looked at what the Koran says, let's look at the doctrines which the Bible teaches.
In Isaiah 29:18 we read about a book that is prophesied to come forth in the last days. Then, in verse 11-12, it says that this book is given to one who is unlearned, but he cannot read it because it is sealed. Upon a casual glance at this verse, it might appear that God could have been referring to the Koran, which Muhammad could not read because he was unlearned and illiterate. But this verse doesn't say that the person who will be given this book couldn't read it because he was unlearned. Instead, he couldn't read it because it was SEALED. Joseph Smith didn't have much formal education, and was therefore unlearned, but he could read. Yet, when he received the Book of Mormon, a large portion of it was physically sealed. But even the part which was unsealed, was written in a language that he didn't understand. On the other hand, the book which Muhammad was given which he could not read was not because it was sealed, but because he didn't know how to read. Furthermore, that book did not result in the Koran.
In Ezekiel 37:16-20 we read of two sticks that were written upon. One was to represent the 'stick of Judah" and the other one represented the stick of Joseph. Leaving aside the disputes of what this prophecy means, it is clear that these two sticks (books) come from Joseph and Judah, who are two sons of Jacob (or Israel) who came from Isaac, not Ishmael.
According to what Mormons believe, the Book of Mormon is a written record of those who were a branch of Joseph, a remnant of the house of Israel. In Ezekiel 12:16 we read this about the impending destruction of Jerusalem: "But I will leave a few men of them from the sword, from the famine, and pestilence, that they may declare all their abominations among the heathen wither they come: and they shall know that I am the Lord."
Lehi lived in Jerusalem where he too prophesied of the coming destruction of that great city. Then, being warned of God in a dream, he fled with his family, thereby being saved "from the sword, from the famine and pestilence". But the prophecy of Ezekiel also declared that those who were saved would "declare all their abominations among the heathen." The question we need to ask ourselves is: if they were going to declare all their abominations among the heathen, then where are these declarations of theirs?
In Ezekiel 14:22-23 we read, "Yet behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, both sons and daughters. Behold they shall come forth unto you and ye shall see their way and their doings..." As we ponder this prophecy, we need to ask ourselves, How can others see their ways and their doings without some sort of a written record? As a follow-up question we could ask, What is the purpose of this record? The remainder of the above verse gives the answer: "...and ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem even concerning all that I have brought upon it and they shall comfort you, when ye see their ways and their doings: and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it. Saith the Lord God." The Book of Mormon easily fulfills these words of Ezekiel.
In Isaiah 43:9,19,21-22 we read, "Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: Who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? Let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, it is true..... Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers, in the desert. This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise. But thou hast not called upon me,O Jacob, but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel."
As for the Church of Jesus Christ of the latter day saints, Muhammad's claim that he was the last prophet and that the Koran is the last and ultimate revelation from God is viewed as an attack upon the Book of Mormon and upon their view that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
An interesting and very intriguing problem arises from the fact that the angel Gabriel who grave the revelations to Muhammad was the same angle who revealed to Mary that she would be the mother of the Messiah. Yet, how could Gabriel say that Jesus was to be the promised Savior, if Jesus sent another person to die in his place and then convinced His disciples to lie about it?
It is clear that the Holy Ghost would have glorified Jesus and would have given His words and teachings, well I would say that to think that Muhammad was the Holy Ghost, it is just a minestrone without any sense
Why the Muslim believe this "Dogma"? Simple, because an unknown author (think about it) of the Barnabas' Gospel (think about it) made a change of wovels in the Greek text of the John's Gospel. Practically, according to this unknown author Jesus would have announced the coming of the PERIKLUTOS ( A SUPER PRAISED) and not a PARAKLETOS (Lawyer) and so the Muslim accept the Bible, but are taking a clue from a book which is not included in the Bible, so what is clear in the Bible should be trow away just because the unknown author of the Gospel of Barnaba, probably made a mistake in copying the text. Anyway according to the Bible they still would be short of a second witness because the law of the Bible WANTS at least two KNOWN WITNESSES.
Now that we have looked at what the Koran says, let's look at the doctrines which the Bible teaches.
In Isaiah 29:18 we read about a book that is prophesied to come forth in the last days. Then, in verse 11-12, it says that this book is given to one who is unlearned, but he cannot read it because it is sealed. Upon a casual glance at this verse, it might appear that God could have been referring to the Koran, which Muhammad could not read because he was unlearned and illiterate. But this verse doesn't say that the person who will be given this book couldn't read it because he was unlearned. Instead, he couldn't read it because it was SEALED. Joseph Smith didn't have much formal education, and was therefore unlearned, but he could read. Yet, when he received the Book of Mormon, a large portion of it was physically sealed. But even the part which was unsealed, was written in a language that he didn't understand. On the other hand, the book which Muhammad was given which he could not read was not because it was sealed, but because he didn't know how to read. Furthermore, that book did not result in the Koran.
In Ezekiel 37:16-20 we read of two sticks that were written upon. One was to represent the 'stick of Judah" and the other one represented the stick of Joseph. Leaving aside the disputes of what this prophecy means, it is clear that these two sticks (books) come from Joseph and Judah, who are two sons of Jacob (or Israel) who came from Isaac, not Ishmael.
According to what Mormons believe, the Book of Mormon is a written record of those who were a branch of Joseph, a remnant of the house of Israel. In Ezekiel 12:16 we read this about the impending destruction of Jerusalem: "But I will leave a few men of them from the sword, from the famine, and pestilence, that they may declare all their abominations among the heathen wither they come: and they shall know that I am the Lord."
Lehi lived in Jerusalem where he too prophesied of the coming destruction of that great city. Then, being warned of God in a dream, he fled with his family, thereby being saved "from the sword, from the famine and pestilence". But the prophecy of Ezekiel also declared that those who were saved would "declare all their abominations among the heathen." The question we need to ask ourselves is: if they were going to declare all their abominations among the heathen, then where are these declarations of theirs?
In Ezekiel 14:22-23 we read, "Yet behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, both sons and daughters. Behold they shall come forth unto you and ye shall see their way and their doings..." As we ponder this prophecy, we need to ask ourselves, How can others see their ways and their doings without some sort of a written record? As a follow-up question we could ask, What is the purpose of this record? The remainder of the above verse gives the answer: "...and ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem even concerning all that I have brought upon it and they shall comfort you, when ye see their ways and their doings: and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it. Saith the Lord God." The Book of Mormon easily fulfills these words of Ezekiel.
In Isaiah 43:9,19,21-22 we read, "Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: Who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? Let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, it is true..... Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers, in the desert. This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise. But thou hast not called upon me,O Jacob, but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel."
As for the Church of Jesus Christ of the latter day saints, Muhammad's claim that he was the last prophet and that the Koran is the last and ultimate revelation from God is viewed as an attack upon the Book of Mormon and upon their view that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
An interesting and very intriguing problem arises from the fact that the angel Gabriel who grave the revelations to Muhammad was the same angle who revealed to Mary that she would be the mother of the Messiah. Yet, how could Gabriel say that Jesus was to be the promised Savior, if Jesus sent another person to die in his place and then convinced His disciples to lie about it?
The Sabbath.
These are parts extracted from a correspondence between me and a Seventh-day Adventist.
Hy,
The point of our discussion was whether we should continue observing the Sabbath day on Saturday, even after the resurrection of Jesus, or if there was a change in this observance. I will attempt to show that there was a change.
In Hosea 2:1-11 he is talking about the apostasy of Israel, and here the Lord is speaking of what will happen in the future. The Lord Himself says in verse 11, "I will (future tense) cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons and her Sabbaths." Here the Lord Himself declares that at some point in the future, because of the apostasy of Israel, the Sabbath day will cease. If somebody wants to say that this is not what He means, I disagree because I am not bending the scriptures at all. This is what He actually said. Therefore, what I now need to do is try to show when this change occurred.
In Luke 22:17-20 we read, "And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, take this (imperative) and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the wine until the kingdom of God shall come. And He took the bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament."
Here we read that Jesus declared that He was instituting a new testament which was replacing an old, previous testament. It was at this point that the disciples received the commandment to observe the Lord's Supper, however, there is no mention about which day it should be observed. Fortunately the Bible give us the means to aid us in our understanding. In Matthew 18:16 we are told "that in the mouth or two or three witnesses every word may be established." (see also II Corinthians 13:1, Hebrew 10:28, and John 8:13-18.)
If we believe in the Bible then we should be able to support our ideas through what is written in the scriptures. Therefore, we have to find places in the New Testament which talk about the subject of the Sabbath day and Sunday, which is the first day of the week, and see what they have to say about these two days.
As a side note, in a booklet published by the Seventh-day Adventist church, it is written that Constantine, the Roman Emperor, was the first to make Sunday the official day of worship. Supposedly he was a worshipper of the sun, and it is from this that we get the name "Sun" day. But this can't be true because in Italy at that time, they didn't speak English but Italian. In Italian the name for the first day of the week is Domenica, which comes from the Latin Dominus, which in English means "the Lord." Thus Dominus day literally means "the Lord's day." Interestingly, that it is the same expression John used in Revelation 1:10. So, we see that there is biblical evidence for this name rather than just pagan historic evidence.
But let's see what the Bible itself has to say about whether we should worship on the seventh day (Saturday) or on the first day of the week (Sunday). When the saints met together, one of the things they always did was to partake of the Lord's Supper in commemoration of His atonement. When looking at the scriptures, we should not add or subtract from what they declare. Instead, we should accept what they say.
The Seventh-day Adventist church quotes several scriptures in Acts where it is states that Paul often went to the synagogues to preach the gospel (see Acts 17:2-4, 18:4). Does this mean that Paul and other Christians went there in order to partake of the Lord's Supper and to collect their offering money? If that is so, then it would seem very strange to me that the Jews were there also taking the bread and wine in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. Even worse, I find it rather strange that the Jews would even allow the Christians to worship Jesus in their synagogue. Knowing the Jews, they would have probably stoned Paul and all the other Christians along with him for such a blasphemous act.
The reason why Paul (not the Christian community) went into the synagogue on the Sabbath, was, as the scriptures say, so he could "reasoned with them out of the scriptures." In other words, he was trying to convert them, and the best time and place was on Saturday when they met in their synagogues. That explains the two or three scriptures which are used to support the idea of meeting on Saturday. Now I will show from the scriptures those which support my beliefs.
In John 20:19-23 we read, "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews. Then came Jesus and stood in the midst, and said unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said He showed unto them his hand and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when He hath said this, He breathed on them, sand saith unto them, Receive the Holy Ghost."
I would imagine that this was a very special occasion for them. They not only saw the Lord alive after His death but they also received the Holy Ghost. This event occurred on the first day of the week when the disciples were assembled.
In Acts 20:7 we read, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." It is said by the Seventh-day Adventists, that they were assembled on that day to break the bread because of the departure of Paul, but that doesn't make any sense. If they had met on the Sabbath, the day before, they would have been no reason to also break bread in commemorating the Lord's Supper on Sunday as well. But, either way, I can count this as my first witness from the Bible in which it is clearly written that the Christians came together on the first day of the week to worship.
In I Corinthians 16- 2 we read, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." If they assembled on Saturday, the day before, they could have collected the offering on that day, as the Seventh-day Adventist do now. However, if the church is suppose to collect the offerings on the first day of the week, then they are performing this collection differently from the way the Bible says. On the other hand, if they assembled on Saturday it would have been easier to collect the money on the same day than to gather together on a separate date. This is my second witness from the Bible that on the first day of the week they were collecting offerings, as all the churches do now, excluding yours which collects their offerings on the last day of the week. However, all churches, including yours, collect offerings on the day they meet together to worship.
In 1 Corinthians 11:20-33 Paul sets forth the rules for the partaking of the Lord's Supper. However, he didn't mention the day when they did this, but he does describe the way in which people should take it. To me this is important because the Christians wouldn't have been eating the Lord's Supper in the synagogues, nor would they be collecting their offerings money. This is my third witnesses from the Bible. And in doing so, I didn't add or subtract anything from the scriptures I quoted. And they clearly showed that the Christians met to take the Lord's Supper on Sunday, the first day of the week.
Quoting scriptures before the time of the resurrection has no meaning because the change in days happened after the resurrection. Therefore, "Domenica" (Sunday) was chosen to remember the Lord's day when He rose from the grave, just as John mentioned in Revelation.
You quoted Romans 14:5 which says, "One man esteemeth one day above another." However, this actually supports my position because it shows that there was a discussion about this change at that point in time. Only the Jews kept the Sabbath, and the Gentiles had very few special days which they observed. If that is the case, then why would there be these kinds of questions? This argument was being made around 50 A.D., but, according to you, Constantine made this change in 313 A.D. If that is so, then why was there this discussion about days in the time of Paul if there hadn't been any change until Constantine?
Another interesting scripture is found in Acts 2:1-4 which reads, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place (gathered). And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Here we see that the Christians were all gathered in one place on the day of Pentecost and they received the Holy Ghost. What makes this scripture so important is because the day of Pentecost follows the Sabbath (see Leviticus 23:15-16). This is my fourth scripture in defense of my position.
Another interesting thing is that in the Greek version it has the word "Sabbath" in place of "the first day of the week," especially when it follows the old Sabbath day (Saturday) (see Matthew 28:1, also in Mark 16:2 Mark 16:9 Luke 24:1 John 20:1 John 20:19 Acts 20:7 I Corinthians 16:2). But in the original text there is written "Sabbath" 2 times.
We have also historical evidence, to support the fact that Sunday was the day when Christians gathered together to worship Christ, which therefore refutes the theory that it was Constantine who introduced Sunday as the day of worship. This evidence is found in the letter of Ignatius to the Magneians, writing in 101 A.D. He wrote that during his time the believers kept the first day of the week more holy than any other day. That would exclude Saturday as being the most holy day. Justin, the Martyr, in his First Apology, written in 140 A.D.wrote the same thing (1:67). Clement of Alexandria in Book 7, chapter 12, written in 193 A.D. wrote the same, as did Origin in book 3, chapter 23, written in 201 A.D.
Hy,
The point of our discussion was whether we should continue observing the Sabbath day on Saturday, even after the resurrection of Jesus, or if there was a change in this observance. I will attempt to show that there was a change.
In Hosea 2:1-11 he is talking about the apostasy of Israel, and here the Lord is speaking of what will happen in the future. The Lord Himself says in verse 11, "I will (future tense) cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons and her Sabbaths." Here the Lord Himself declares that at some point in the future, because of the apostasy of Israel, the Sabbath day will cease. If somebody wants to say that this is not what He means, I disagree because I am not bending the scriptures at all. This is what He actually said. Therefore, what I now need to do is try to show when this change occurred.
In Luke 22:17-20 we read, "And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, take this (imperative) and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the wine until the kingdom of God shall come. And He took the bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament."
Here we read that Jesus declared that He was instituting a new testament which was replacing an old, previous testament. It was at this point that the disciples received the commandment to observe the Lord's Supper, however, there is no mention about which day it should be observed. Fortunately the Bible give us the means to aid us in our understanding. In Matthew 18:16 we are told "that in the mouth or two or three witnesses every word may be established." (see also II Corinthians 13:1, Hebrew 10:28, and John 8:13-18.)
If we believe in the Bible then we should be able to support our ideas through what is written in the scriptures. Therefore, we have to find places in the New Testament which talk about the subject of the Sabbath day and Sunday, which is the first day of the week, and see what they have to say about these two days.
As a side note, in a booklet published by the Seventh-day Adventist church, it is written that Constantine, the Roman Emperor, was the first to make Sunday the official day of worship. Supposedly he was a worshipper of the sun, and it is from this that we get the name "Sun" day. But this can't be true because in Italy at that time, they didn't speak English but Italian. In Italian the name for the first day of the week is Domenica, which comes from the Latin Dominus, which in English means "the Lord." Thus Dominus day literally means "the Lord's day." Interestingly, that it is the same expression John used in Revelation 1:10. So, we see that there is biblical evidence for this name rather than just pagan historic evidence.
But let's see what the Bible itself has to say about whether we should worship on the seventh day (Saturday) or on the first day of the week (Sunday). When the saints met together, one of the things they always did was to partake of the Lord's Supper in commemoration of His atonement. When looking at the scriptures, we should not add or subtract from what they declare. Instead, we should accept what they say.
The Seventh-day Adventist church quotes several scriptures in Acts where it is states that Paul often went to the synagogues to preach the gospel (see Acts 17:2-4, 18:4). Does this mean that Paul and other Christians went there in order to partake of the Lord's Supper and to collect their offering money? If that is so, then it would seem very strange to me that the Jews were there also taking the bread and wine in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. Even worse, I find it rather strange that the Jews would even allow the Christians to worship Jesus in their synagogue. Knowing the Jews, they would have probably stoned Paul and all the other Christians along with him for such a blasphemous act.
The reason why Paul (not the Christian community) went into the synagogue on the Sabbath, was, as the scriptures say, so he could "reasoned with them out of the scriptures." In other words, he was trying to convert them, and the best time and place was on Saturday when they met in their synagogues. That explains the two or three scriptures which are used to support the idea of meeting on Saturday. Now I will show from the scriptures those which support my beliefs.
In John 20:19-23 we read, "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews. Then came Jesus and stood in the midst, and said unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said He showed unto them his hand and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when He hath said this, He breathed on them, sand saith unto them, Receive the Holy Ghost."
I would imagine that this was a very special occasion for them. They not only saw the Lord alive after His death but they also received the Holy Ghost. This event occurred on the first day of the week when the disciples were assembled.
In Acts 20:7 we read, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow." It is said by the Seventh-day Adventists, that they were assembled on that day to break the bread because of the departure of Paul, but that doesn't make any sense. If they had met on the Sabbath, the day before, they would have been no reason to also break bread in commemorating the Lord's Supper on Sunday as well. But, either way, I can count this as my first witness from the Bible in which it is clearly written that the Christians came together on the first day of the week to worship.
In I Corinthians 16- 2 we read, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." If they assembled on Saturday, the day before, they could have collected the offering on that day, as the Seventh-day Adventist do now. However, if the church is suppose to collect the offerings on the first day of the week, then they are performing this collection differently from the way the Bible says. On the other hand, if they assembled on Saturday it would have been easier to collect the money on the same day than to gather together on a separate date. This is my second witness from the Bible that on the first day of the week they were collecting offerings, as all the churches do now, excluding yours which collects their offerings on the last day of the week. However, all churches, including yours, collect offerings on the day they meet together to worship.
In 1 Corinthians 11:20-33 Paul sets forth the rules for the partaking of the Lord's Supper. However, he didn't mention the day when they did this, but he does describe the way in which people should take it. To me this is important because the Christians wouldn't have been eating the Lord's Supper in the synagogues, nor would they be collecting their offerings money. This is my third witnesses from the Bible. And in doing so, I didn't add or subtract anything from the scriptures I quoted. And they clearly showed that the Christians met to take the Lord's Supper on Sunday, the first day of the week.
Quoting scriptures before the time of the resurrection has no meaning because the change in days happened after the resurrection. Therefore, "Domenica" (Sunday) was chosen to remember the Lord's day when He rose from the grave, just as John mentioned in Revelation.
You quoted Romans 14:5 which says, "One man esteemeth one day above another." However, this actually supports my position because it shows that there was a discussion about this change at that point in time. Only the Jews kept the Sabbath, and the Gentiles had very few special days which they observed. If that is the case, then why would there be these kinds of questions? This argument was being made around 50 A.D., but, according to you, Constantine made this change in 313 A.D. If that is so, then why was there this discussion about days in the time of Paul if there hadn't been any change until Constantine?
Another interesting scripture is found in Acts 2:1-4 which reads, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place (gathered). And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Here we see that the Christians were all gathered in one place on the day of Pentecost and they received the Holy Ghost. What makes this scripture so important is because the day of Pentecost follows the Sabbath (see Leviticus 23:15-16). This is my fourth scripture in defense of my position.
Another interesting thing is that in the Greek version it has the word "Sabbath" in place of "the first day of the week," especially when it follows the old Sabbath day (Saturday) (see Matthew 28:1, also in Mark 16:2 Mark 16:9 Luke 24:1 John 20:1 John 20:19 Acts 20:7 I Corinthians 16:2). But in the original text there is written "Sabbath" 2 times.
We have also historical evidence, to support the fact that Sunday was the day when Christians gathered together to worship Christ, which therefore refutes the theory that it was Constantine who introduced Sunday as the day of worship. This evidence is found in the letter of Ignatius to the Magneians, writing in 101 A.D. He wrote that during his time the believers kept the first day of the week more holy than any other day. That would exclude Saturday as being the most holy day. Justin, the Martyr, in his First Apology, written in 140 A.D.wrote the same thing (1:67). Clement of Alexandria in Book 7, chapter 12, written in 193 A.D. wrote the same, as did Origin in book 3, chapter 23, written in 201 A.D.
There's a so-called pseudepigraphal work called the Epistle of Barnabas which purports to have been written by Barnabas, Paul's missionary companion. It's not part of the Biblical canon, though, so naturally it's not as "authoritative" as a New Testament book, but it is known to have been written at roughly the same time as the latest books of the NT books (around 100 - 150 AD).
Barnabas 13:9 reads, "Lastly he says to them, I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths. Consider what he means by it: the Sabbaths, he says, that you now keep are not acceptable to me, but only those which I have made, when resting from
all things I shall begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other world." [and, of course, the 8th day is the same as the 1st day]
Hy,
I want to thank you again for your kindness in writing me back. When I wrote to your church's web site they promised that a bible specialist would write back to me in 3 to 4 days. After a week went by and nobody answered my comments, I took that to mean that they couldn't. It appears that when I asked a question concerning the main doctrine of your church in a different way than normal, they don't know how answer it. In fact, I had to write them two more times before I received an answer from you, and you are not who I was writing to. Even at that, your first answer avoided providing me answer from the New Testament, although you did quote quite a few scriptures from the Old Testament,.
Concerning your second letter, I again challenged you to provided evidence for your position from the New Testament and again you avoided the question of where and when the first Christians met to worship and partake of the Lord's Supper. In your letter you said you didn't know anything about where they met, but this is important. If they met in the synagogue of the Jews on Saturday, it would have been impossible for them to worship as Christians. In your second letter your answer to that was, "The Sabbath is as old as man," but that doesn't explain my question.
I don't want to offend you, but even that answer is not completely right. The word Sabbath doesn't appear in the Bible until the Book of Exodus, which was two thousands years after Adam was created. When God first speaks about the seventh day, He doesn't give that day a name. This is an important point. Can you quote me one scripture before God gave the ten commandments, that shows people were keeping the Sabbath? You can't, because there is none. And if people did worship God on the Sabbath from the days of Adam, then why did the Lord have to explain to Moses to worship on the Sabbath, if, like you say, they already knew about this law?
Since it was Moses who wrote the first five books of the Bible (known as the Pentateuch), he certainly could have given us insights about whether Abraham, Isaac Jacob, Noah Enoch and all the other holy men of God before him kept the Sabbath. Then why did the Lord have to explain everything to Moses about the Sabbath if all the Patriarchs had kept it? You wrote to me saying, "without there being a word in the Bible about this which would certainly be one of the greatest events that the world has ever known." If that is true, then how come there is no mention of the Sabbath day from Genesis to Exodus?
Regarding Hosea, you quoted me someone's commentary to prove your point, but a commentary is nothing more than the opinion of a man. If I took a commentary from another religious faith, it would offer a different opinion of what Hosea meant. A commentary might be useful for obscure prophesies, but here the statement is so clear that there is no need for a commentary. Instead, what you are trying to do is change the meaning of the scripture because you can accept what it actually says.
You quoted Matthew 19:16-19 and I want to thank you for pointing that out to me because it helps prove my point. Jesus Himself quoted the Law of Moses saying,: "Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," but notice He didn't say anything about keeping the Sabbath day holy!
If this is so important, how come Jesus Himself forgot to quote the greatest of all the commandments?
If you say that just because Jesus didn't mention this one law doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep all the laws of Moses, then we should also be offering animal sacrifices as well, just as the law of Moses requires. But even that is not a valid argument, because if keeping the Sabbath is one of the greatest commandments, and is so important, surely Christ would have thought to at least make mention of that fact.
Anyway, I really appreciated talking to you and I respect your religious beliefs. If you want add any more comments to our correspondence, you are welcome to do so. The Bible will remain the same for me and you, but if you want to give me some more explanations, please don't give me the commentary of some man based on human opinion because I will not accept them. To me, the most important thing is to respect the opinion of others. As far as I'm concerned, you can worship on Saturday, eat nothing but vegetables and do everything you want, because I am not your Judge.
Good by from Massimo.
Barnabas 13:9 reads, "Lastly he says to them, I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths. Consider what he means by it: the Sabbaths, he says, that you now keep are not acceptable to me, but only those which I have made, when resting from
all things I shall begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other world." [and, of course, the 8th day is the same as the 1st day]
Hy,
I want to thank you again for your kindness in writing me back. When I wrote to your church's web site they promised that a bible specialist would write back to me in 3 to 4 days. After a week went by and nobody answered my comments, I took that to mean that they couldn't. It appears that when I asked a question concerning the main doctrine of your church in a different way than normal, they don't know how answer it. In fact, I had to write them two more times before I received an answer from you, and you are not who I was writing to. Even at that, your first answer avoided providing me answer from the New Testament, although you did quote quite a few scriptures from the Old Testament,.
Concerning your second letter, I again challenged you to provided evidence for your position from the New Testament and again you avoided the question of where and when the first Christians met to worship and partake of the Lord's Supper. In your letter you said you didn't know anything about where they met, but this is important. If they met in the synagogue of the Jews on Saturday, it would have been impossible for them to worship as Christians. In your second letter your answer to that was, "The Sabbath is as old as man," but that doesn't explain my question.
I don't want to offend you, but even that answer is not completely right. The word Sabbath doesn't appear in the Bible until the Book of Exodus, which was two thousands years after Adam was created. When God first speaks about the seventh day, He doesn't give that day a name. This is an important point. Can you quote me one scripture before God gave the ten commandments, that shows people were keeping the Sabbath? You can't, because there is none. And if people did worship God on the Sabbath from the days of Adam, then why did the Lord have to explain to Moses to worship on the Sabbath, if, like you say, they already knew about this law?
Since it was Moses who wrote the first five books of the Bible (known as the Pentateuch), he certainly could have given us insights about whether Abraham, Isaac Jacob, Noah Enoch and all the other holy men of God before him kept the Sabbath. Then why did the Lord have to explain everything to Moses about the Sabbath if all the Patriarchs had kept it? You wrote to me saying, "without there being a word in the Bible about this which would certainly be one of the greatest events that the world has ever known." If that is true, then how come there is no mention of the Sabbath day from Genesis to Exodus?
Regarding Hosea, you quoted me someone's commentary to prove your point, but a commentary is nothing more than the opinion of a man. If I took a commentary from another religious faith, it would offer a different opinion of what Hosea meant. A commentary might be useful for obscure prophesies, but here the statement is so clear that there is no need for a commentary. Instead, what you are trying to do is change the meaning of the scripture because you can accept what it actually says.
You quoted Matthew 19:16-19 and I want to thank you for pointing that out to me because it helps prove my point. Jesus Himself quoted the Law of Moses saying,: "Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," but notice He didn't say anything about keeping the Sabbath day holy!
If this is so important, how come Jesus Himself forgot to quote the greatest of all the commandments?
If you say that just because Jesus didn't mention this one law doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep all the laws of Moses, then we should also be offering animal sacrifices as well, just as the law of Moses requires. But even that is not a valid argument, because if keeping the Sabbath is one of the greatest commandments, and is so important, surely Christ would have thought to at least make mention of that fact.
Anyway, I really appreciated talking to you and I respect your religious beliefs. If you want add any more comments to our correspondence, you are welcome to do so. The Bible will remain the same for me and you, but if you want to give me some more explanations, please don't give me the commentary of some man based on human opinion because I will not accept them. To me, the most important thing is to respect the opinion of others. As far as I'm concerned, you can worship on Saturday, eat nothing but vegetables and do everything you want, because I am not your Judge.
Good by from Massimo.
Today 9/27/01 a reader named Gary Cross wrote me a long and boring e mail which was trying to point out this from his own words:
"Conclusion
Since God never changed or abolished His law, it still stands today with the expectation that men of honor and truth will be obedient to Him. Yes, God’s law is still valid, He still expects His children to obey it, not for salvation or justification but because we love Him and want to serve Him."
James 2:10
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Galatians 3:10
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Galatians 3:10
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Galatians 3:24
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:25
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:25
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Please if you know him make sure that he will perform sacrifices like the Hebrews, I mean lambs sacrifices and all the rituals connected. I wonder if this guy is aware of the atoning sacrifice that Jesus did.
mercoledì 5 settembre 2012
Mormon defenders.
Mormon defenders.
“Mormon Defenders” is a book which tries to provide evidence refuting the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Instead what the author of this book has done has actually some remarks in. In his foreword that is quite favorable toward us. He wrote: "For more than a decade I have watched new Latter-day Saints apologists emerge into public dialog. I have witnessed LDS scholars gain and hold prestigious academic positions in non-LDS institutions. I have observed an increasing sophistication in their advocacy and in their responses to their critics. The seriousness of our situation became urgently clear when InterVarsity Press published an interfaith dialog between Dr. Craig Bloomberg (Denver seminary) and Dr. Stephen Robinson (Brigham Young University) entitled , How Wide the Divide?”From these comments, it’s clear that the writer wasn't satisfied with what Dr Craig Bloomberg presented and perhaps thought that Dr. Robinson won the argument because he continued: "I was disappointed that Dr. Bloomberg was not more aware and critical (practically is saying that Dr. Bloomberg didn't understand much of what was going on) of Dr. Robinson's less-than-mainstream (or less-than-candid) presentation of his Mormon faith.” He continued by saying, “With the publication (sic) of the Mormon defenders my hopes have been reigneted.” What he is actually trying to say is, “Praise the Lord that I am here to rescue the truth!" In fact he further proclaimed: "You have in your hands the work of someone WELL ACQUAINTED with LDS arguments and rhetoric, and familiar with the Bible and current biblical scholarship.”
In his introduction he also states, “Richard and Joan Ostling, in `Mormon America: The power and the promise,’ report that with over ten million members worldwide, and projections of a membership exceeding 265 million by 2080. Mormonism is on its way to becoming the newest world religion since Islam.” He continues, saying, “ A key to this growth has been the Mormon effort to portray their faith as a genuine heir of the Christian tradition, for as Ostling notes, `The bulk of converts’ to Mormonism `come from conventional Christians backgrounds’”
In my personal opinion if people leave their “conventional Christian background” to convert to the LDS faith that would seem to be strong evidence that they didn't feel their old church had the real truth, since obviously they were looking for something that had more than what their church was offering.
The author continued by writing: "In the past, there have been several effective responses to the claim made by the Latter-day saints that Mormonism is an authentic variant of orthodox Christianity.”
Perhaps this author hasn’t really taken the time to think about what he had just written in the two previous lines because if he did he wouldn’t be making such a claim. If what he says is true, then why are so many people leaving their churches to convert to the LDS faith?
A little later on in his introduction he continues by saying “the need to develop a better scholarship was apparent in 1997, when the InterVarsity Press published `How Wide the Divide?’ This book concluded that the divide between Mormonism and Christianity was not as significant as was commonly believed. In 1998 Carl Mosser and Paul Owen warned: `The sophistication and erudition (thanks) of the LDS apologetics has risen CONSIDERABLY while evangelical responses have not (sic), the need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians ( practically the whole army) to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars, if we do not take this threat seriously we will needlessly lose the battle without even knowing it.’"
Even better the writer continues: "Mosser and Owen also noted that, AS FAR AS THEY WERE AWARE, there were no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact (ed) with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetics writings."
Here, the author admits that until 1998 the evangelical church hadn’t written any books worthy of being compared to those written by the LDS apologists. What they are admitting is that after spending 160 years criticizing what the Mormons believe, they concede that all their writings had not been effective.
I have to admit that just this information alone was worth to the price of the book, and I was almost going to stop reading any further in it but I thought that maybe this book could reinforce my testimony even more, so I decided to take a closer look at what it had to say.
On the cover of his book, after the title, it says: "How Latter-day Saint apologists misinterpret the Bible.” When people disagree about what the Bible teaches, the most common accusation made is to declare that it is the other person who is misinterpreting or misunderstanding what the Bible is telling us. But this a fallacious argument. First of all, if there is a disagreement between two people over what the Bible teaches, it’s clearly apparent that they are both interpreting the Bible differently. To make such a claim is to state the obvious. But the second, and most important point is, who is it that decides which side of the debate is doing the misinterpreting? Since there is no authoritative judge to settle the matter, it is left up to each individual to decide for themselves, - based on their own level of knowledge, and their own preconceived ideas and opinions - who they want to believe is correctly interpreting the Bible. Thus, there really is no way to settle the argument. So why even make the accusation in the first place?
The first chapter is about Deity and deification. A fundamental point of contention between LDS doctrines and Christianity is expressed in D&C 130:22 which reads, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones.” Addressing this issue, the writer explains: "For our purposes, we will pursue one question: Does the Bible teach that God has a body of flesh and bones?” He concludes, "LDS apologists cite instances of divine incarnation from the Bible and assume that human form is God's usual state of being, but nothing in the text indicates that God resides permanently in a body of flesh.”
The operative word here is “permanently”. The writer seems to imply that God manifested Himself as man just on a few occasions, but such an idea can not be found anywhere in the scriptures. Thus, what we see in this book, as with most Christian commentators, in trying to make his point, the author has to bend what the scriptures actually say in order to make them say something different than what is clearly stated. To show what I mean, in Genesis 1:26, 27 the Bible tells us, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Mainstream Christians typically interpret this passage to mean that we are made in the image of God' s attributes, such as His personality and rationality. They say that this verse is not meant to be interpreted as meaning that man was made in the express image and likeness of God’s form. And yet the Bible contradicts this very idea when it tells us in Genesis 5:3 “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own LIKENESS, after his IMAGE; and called his name Seth.”
I really didn't need to use genesis 5:3 to support the lds idea but
Genesis 3:22
22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,
22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,
This clearly means that before of fall Adam and Eve were in the Physical image and likeness because only after partaking of the forbidden fruit God Himself declared man is become as one of us, referring to mental rationality and personality and therefore.....
To further explain his point, the author of this book next talks about Theophanies. He quotes Exodus 33:11 which reads “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend,” and then writes: "This verse is representative of passages called upon by LDS apologists to prove the doctrine of divine embodiment. Christians maintain that the language here is not anthropomorphic. Instead, God is metaphorically described in terms of human traits.”If that is so, then my question is: Where in the Bible does it say that? The answer is: NOWHERE!!! Thus we see that in order for them to maintain their doctrine, they have to bend the straightforward, simple statements of the scriptures to make them say something they don’t. But then he admits: "Christians acknowledge that God has OFTEN TEMPORARILY assumed human form to come among men." Again I ask: Where in the scriptures is this idea found? And again the answer is: NOWHERE!!!
This brings up another problem for the writer because Christians also believe the scriptures teach that “no man hath seen God at any time” (1 John 4:12). So, if Christians believe that God has “OFTEN TEMPORARILY” assumed human form to appear before men (as the writer claims), yet Christians also believe that “no man hath seen God at any time,” how do they know whether God has a permanent or temporary body if no man has ever seen him?
However, the Bible does clearly tell us that men have seen God. In Exodus 24:10, 11 we read, “And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.” In Genesis 32:30 it tells us, “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”
In an effort to explain these passages of scriptures the author writes: "The elders expected that judgment would take place (he laid not his hand). The reaction of Jacob and the elders satisfies Hopkins request for an `indication’ that God is something other than what He appears to be in these passages.”
This is pure speculation! The fact is that the Bible plainly states that they saw God face to face. There is nothing mystical about these verses of scripture, and I’ll show you why. In Exodus 33:11 we read, “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.” This is a clear comparison which helps us understand what the scriptures means.
As proof that no one has seen God, mainstream Christians point to Exodus 33:20-23 which reads, “And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.”
Although this does talk about God’s face not being able to be seen, what Christians fail to mention is that God did show Moses His HAND and HIS BACK, thereby validating the fact that God does have a human form. This fact is further pointed out in Numbers 12:6-8 which reads, “And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
Take a look at these scriptures Numbers 12:6-8 John 1:18 John 6:46 III John 1:11 Colossians 2:9
Even Jesus referred to Himself many times as “the son of Man.” Since Jesus is also the Son of God, by also calling Himself the Son of Man, He is also declaring that God, His Father, is a Man. Consider this: in John 10:31-36 we read, “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? “
What Jesus meant by saying "the scriptures cannot be broken" is that what the scriptures say is the truth and therefore cannot be denied. And the scriptures say we are gods. Jesus was the Son of God, and Paul tells us in Acts 17:29 “For as certain also of your poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.”
Both Paul and Jesus have made it clear that all of us are offspring of God. He is a real Father in the most common sense of the word for each one of us. The word “offspring” means “to come out or to spring forth from something.” Thus, to be an offspring of God means that we’ve come out of or sprang forth from God
To make clear those two points
Acts 17:26
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Acts 17:27
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Acts 17:28
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Acts 17:29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Acts 17:27
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Acts 17:28
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Acts 17:29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Paul was giving this simple explanation to the Greek (heathen) and said :"as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Acts 17:29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, "
Acts 17:29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, "
John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
See Paul and Jesus made clear that every man is an offspring of God and He is a real Father in the most common sense for each one of us. Offspring means to come out or spring out from something and to be from the same kind in fact the words of Paul "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. " are clear, he was just using common sense. Simplicity shows reality complexity is the necessity to hide something, God is simple in His ways, philosophers are very troubled in explaining what they assume to believe because they have no the truth
I accept and believe the words of Jesus. If He said He was the Son of Man and that He was the Son of God, then I have to believe that God is a Man, otherwise the Bible doesn’t mean what it says. It was God, in the beginning who commanded that every fruit should reproduce according to his kind. Man didn’t spring forth from a cow. If the scriptures refer to mankind as being the offspring of God, then that means the Bible teaches that God is our Father in a real and literal sense. And if that is so, then we look like our Father, because we are His offspring. Also, if Jesus is God (as Christians believe) then the bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven of Jesus is yet another proof that God has a human form.
Also the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension in heaven in a body is another proof of this point, especially considering that Protestants believe that Jesus Himself is in the Father. Jesus did eat in the presence of the disciples just to prove this point, just to prove that he was not a spirit. He used common a simple ideas to teach his disciples.
In chapter two of this book the writer talks about the Sonship of Jesus. Here he becomes even more complicated with his explanation, mixing scriptures from different books of the Bible in an attempt to prove his point. I am always amazed at how people avoid common sense and the simple things by continually trying to make the Bible say something different than what it actually says.When trying to explain Colossians 1:15 where Jesus is referred to as the firstborn over all creation, the author claims that what this means is that Jesus became God's wisdom. In other words, we are not supposed to take this statement literally. According to the writer this is clearly meant to be FIGURATIVE in meaning.
Unfortunately he is not aware that in Genesis there are two creations accounts and therefore he is as usual a little bit confused, in fact he says that Jesus is declared to be the creator of all things in Jonh 1:1 and therefore he can't be the firstborn over all creation Colossians 1:15
Since the writer doesn’t understand that we are the offspring of God in a pre-existent life, he doesn’t understand how Jesus can be the first born of all creation and still be the creator of the earth. Therefore, he has to bend and twist the scriptures in order to make them agree with his erroneous ideas. But even here we have the clear words of Jesus when He told the apostle John, “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen [Jesus], the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God” (Revelation 3:14). It seems to me that everything this writer says is contradicted by the very Bible he himself claims to believe in. The writer spent 52 pages trying to make his point by claiming that the Bible didn’t mean what it actually says. What a waste!
In chapter three he talks about the LDS belief in our pre-mortal life. He quotes Job 38:4 which reads, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” The author claims that when God asked this question, He was using sarcasm rather than indicating that Job was alive when God created the earth. But the writer has made a major error with this interpretation because, despite his attempt to critically analyze the meaning of words to verify his theory, he never quotes the crucial answer which God Himself gave to His own question. He said, “Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born or because the number of thy days is great” (Job 38:21).After this he quotes Ecclesiastes 12:7 which reads, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it,” and Jeremiah 1:5 which says, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
Regarding the first scripture the writer says: "This concept must be read into the text. There is no indication as to what the condition or `age’ of the spirit was at the time it was given." Here he is just playing with words because it doesn’t matter what the condition or age of the spirit was at the time it was given.
His second explanation is even more outlandish. He writes, "Under perfect foreknowledge and omniscience this verse indicates an IDEAL preexistence of the person. It could also allow for a creation of the soul (prior to the formation of the body) for a period of anywhere from a few seconds to thousands of years to eternity."
Even if we say that he is right, he has just contradicted his own argument because even if Job existed only a second before the world was created, that would still imply the idea that Job had a pre-existent life, which he claims the Bible doesn’t teach!
He then discusses John 9:2,3 which reads, “And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned.”
The author has no answer to why the disciples of Jesus believed that a man born blind from birth could have sinned prior to his being born. When Jesus answered their question He made it clear that He understood what his disciples meant. However, Jesus did not disagree with them. He merely said that neither the man nor his parents had sinned. If it was not possible for a man to sin before being born, Jesus would have corrected their erroneous idea, but He didn’t.
Even though the author has no defense against this scripture, still he declares: "This comment relates to the `rabbinic’ discussion over whether infants could sin while still in the womb.” But such a remark misses the point in fact Jesus was talking to his disciples no to a Rabbi. So what we see is that the author wants to talk about tangerines while we are talking about watermelons.
In chapter four the author talks about baptism for the dead. He writes, "The Mormon church has built an interpretative superstructure upon this verse (1 Corinthians 15:29) that defies its setting as a singular statement that offers no hints about how `baptism for the dead’ was performed or what purpose it served."
Such a statement shows a lack of understanding about what the LDS church teaches on this subject, or even what the Bible itself has to say. The doctrine of baptism for the dead is a part of God’s plan to take the gospel to all people, including the dead, as Peter clearly explained when he wrote, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah” (Peter 3:18-20).
When Peter explains that the gospel was preached to the people who lived before Christ' time, he is also telling us that the dead are very much alive but living in another dimension. Since he refers to these people as “spirits,” then obviously, they must be living in a spirit world, otherwise how could Jesus preach to people who are non-existent, and how could they live according to God in the spirit?
Peter also wrote, “For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit” (1 Peter 4:6). The idea of our souls going to a spirit world after death and of the gospel being preached to them is the very reason why we do baptisms for the dead. Despite what this author is trying to show, we see that the idea behind baptism for the dead is based on what the Bible clearly tells us.
But there is more to this doctrine than what the author wants to admit. It ultimately has to do with the mission of Christ. Therefore, to better comprehend why we do baptisms for the dead, we need to gain a better understanding of what the gospel is all about. In Isaiah 61:1 we read, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.”
When Jesus began His ministry, He quoted this scripture and said that it was fulfilled in him. The question we need to ask is, What is the “good tidings (which is what the word “gospel” means) that Jesus preached? According to what the Bible tells us, before Jesus even began His ministry, he first was baptized. But why was He baptized? He Himself gave the answer when He said “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5 ). The reason why Jesus Himself needed to be baptized is because baptism is necessary to enter into the kingdom of God.
Later on in His ministry Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (John 5:25). Even Jesus confirmed what Peter said that the gospel would be preached to the dead. But how can the dead be preached to if they cannot hear it? Obviously they are alive as spirits. Therefore, when Jesus said, “and they that hear shall live” he is talking about being “alive” in the gospel sense. But, if baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of God, then how can they be made “alive” if they cannot be baptized? This is what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 15:29.
The author goes on to declare that the LDS church champions genealogical research because we believe that baptism is a required ordinance, implying that he believes it is not necessary for salvation. However, as we have just seen, it was Jesus Himself who told us the importance of baptism, both by word and by deed. But where the author is really wrong is that it was the Jews who were the champions of genealogical research. All throughout the Bible we see how well they kept their own genealogy, even going back to Adam! Even Mormon genealogists aren’t that good.
At this point the writer of the book asks two questions: 1) What did Paul mean by baptism for the dead? And 2) Was baptism for the dead an approved church practice?
The problem with the answer the author gives to his first question is that he has to change the meaning of Paul’s words to reach his conclusion. Even so, he still says, "most commentators agree that 1 Corinthians 15:29 refers to a practice of vicarious baptism for the dead, but other explanations have been offered and we will examine several of them.”
I find it interesting that instead of talking about what the Bible says, this author has to rely on the words of other commentators. I thought that one of mainstream Christianity’s principle doctrines is that the Bible is to be our only source of divine information. And it is for this very reason that they condemn the LDS church because we have more scriptures than the Bible (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). If we are condemned for using other inspired writings of God, how can he justify himself for relying on the uninspired writings of men?
In answer to his second question, the author writes: "Christians apologists have claimed that this practice was LOCAL to Corinth and a diversion from church policy.”
If we put Paul’s remarks in their proper context, we see that he makes his comments about baptism for the dead in reference to what he is saying about the resurrection. In other places, the Bible tells us that baptism is symbolic of the resurrection (Colossians 2:12). The definition of the resurrection is where our dead body comes back to life, as happened with Jesus. Therefore, if the living are baptized as a symbol of their own resurrection, and the gospel is preached to the dead, why shouldn’t the dead also take upon themselves this same symbolism? Since Paul is speaking to people who have been baptized after Christ's resurrection, this is clear evidence that baptism was being performed by the living Christians for those who were dead.
Continuing his explanation of 1 Corinthians 15:29, the author writes: "Christians point out that Paul mentions the practice in passing, and offers no opinion on the subject, positive or negative.” Although this may be true, we do have some clues that can shed light on this subject. First it doesn’t seem appropriate that Paul would use an invalid practice to support a valid principle. Secondly, it is clear that this practice was well known to the church, otherwise the people he was writing to would not have understood what he meant by his comment.
Even so, the writer of the book insists on saying: "This verse is insufficient to bear the weight of the LDS doctrine." And he is totally correct! This verse should only bear the weight of what it claims and that is that there were people in the church at Corinth who were being baptized for the dead. Furthermore, Paul did not feel this was scandalous behavior on their part, otherwise he would have condemned this practice as he had done with other practices on other occasions. Even if we argue that the Bible doesn’t specifically condone this practice, we have to also admit that neither does it condemn it.
The writer goes on to declare: "One response to this argument is that baptism for the dead was not a widespread practice, and therefore cannot have been a true rite of the church.” This is pure speculation on his part. But even if this practice was not "widespread" as the author states, he is admitting that in some places this practice was used. In which case, he cannot deny that Christians practiced it and that Paul didn’t condemn the practice.
But let me add another thought to this topic. In 1 Corinthians 15:19 Paul wrote, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” To me, this verse seems to indicate that Paul was referring to the preaching of the gospel to the dead and how it isn’t only we the living who have hope in Christ. This fact is borne out by the words of Jesus when He said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (John 5:25).
The author of the book continues saying: "If baptism for the dead was a normal church's practice like baptism of the living, then Paul would have made a point based upon baptism as A WHOLE rather than singling out its use for the dead.” What he is forgetting is that Paul is talking about the resurrection of the dead, therefore it is perfectly reasonable for him to reference their practice of baptism for the dead. It doesn’t make sense for Paul to use baptism for the living when he’s talking about the dead coming back to life.
But the author is not content to leave the matter alone. He continues his argument by writing: "Paul asks why the Corinthians BAPTIZED for the dead, not why they CONTINUED to baptize for the dead. If the Corinthians had been baptizing for the dead BEFORE the resurrection controversy, then Paul would have asked why they were still doing it, not merely why they were doing it.”
Now he is playing games of semantics in order to show that the Corinthians used to practice baptism in the past but now they were no longer doing it. Since he wants to get into grammatical semantics, then it is only fair that we take a closer look what 1 Corinthians 15:29 actually says and see if he is right. It says: “Else what shall they do which ARE baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why ARE they then baptized for the dead?” Even in my Italian version it seems to me that Paul is speaking in the present tense, not in the past tense as this author claims. This is evidenced by the fact that he uses the word “are” which indicates the present tense. In other words, Paul asks the Corinthians, “Why ARE you still continuing to practice baptism for the dead if the dead are not going to rise from their grave.” But according to this author, he claims Paul is saying, “Why ARE you practicing baptism for the dead in the past.” Grammatically, this sentence makes no sense, and neither does this author’s argument.
Even he himself admits this when he later writes, "But Paul is not using baptism for the dead as an evidential proof of the resurrection, as this argument requires; he is using it to expose an inconsistency between what the Corinthians ARE DOING.” So we see he contradicts himself by now claiming that they ARE still doing it! However, he is wrong when he says that Paul is trying to expose an inconsistency between the resurrection and what the Corinthians are doing. He states that if this were a valid practice, Paul would be “using [the practice of] baptism for the dead as evidential proof of the resurrection, as this [kind of] argument requires.”
Yet, if we read this verse in context with the whole sermon Paul is giving about the resurrection, we find that is EXACTLY what Paul is doing when he talks about baptism for the dead. His purpose for making this comment is precisely to give further evidence to his argument that the dead will rise. He begins his sermon by emphatically stating that if the dead don’t rise, then all of his preaching and all of our faith is in vain (verse 14). And it is upon this premise that he then clearly states, “Why ARE you baptizing for the dead if the dead aren’t going to rise from the grave?”
But the fallacy of the author’s argument is further highlighted when we realize that the reason why Paul is giving this sermon is because there were some Christians in Corinth who were teaching that there was not going to be such a thing as the resurrection. Therefore, we could ask this author the same question that Paul asked the Corinthians. If, as this author claims, the Corinthians were performing baptism for the dead in the past, then why were they doing it if they didn’t believe that the dead would rise? When we study what the Bible actually says, we find that rather than Paul showing the inconsistency of this practice with the resurrection, Paul is actually illustrating how both beliefs compliment and go hand-in-hand with one another.
Then he claims: "The rules of Greek-Roman rhetoric indicate that 1 Corinthians 15:19 is not evidential proof for the resurrection.” I was shocked that he would even make such a comment! Paul was a Hebrew not a Greek. But more importantly, there’s no evidence that he was engaging in “Greek-Roman rhetoric” as though he were in a debating contest. Quite the contrary. He was trying to plainly teach correct gospel principles to Christians who were confused about the doctrine of the resurrection.
It seems certain to me that this author not only doesn't understand our belief concerning baptism for the dead, but it’s clear he doesn’t understand the words of Jesus and Peter when they talked about preaching the gospel to the spirits who have died. The reason why Mormons practice baptism for the dead is to provide an opportunity for those who have died without the chance to hear the gospel in this life and be able to inherit the kingdom of God the same as us. It’s obvious that the author of this book doesn’t understand why Mormons practice baptism for the dead, and yet he spent nearly 20 pages explaining why we are wrong for doing it.
Hebrews 11:40
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
I guess that this is just another way to say: We do not know and we don't care!
He then goes on to explain away the literalness of the scriptures which talk about the gospel being preached to the dead (John 5:25; 1 Peter 3:20; 1 Peter 4:6). He claims that these verses of scripture are being misinterpreted by LDS scholars. Instead of taking them for what they say, the author of this book uses all sorts of intellectual reasoning to convince the reader that what the Bible says is not really what the Bible means. If he is right, what he is saying is that in order for us to understand what the Bible really is trying to tell us, we need to have a Master degree in ancient language and history. Yet, I thought that Christians believed the Bible was written for the common man, not for scholarly professors.
His explanation seems to contradict the words of Paul which he wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:1-6 which says, “I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” This certainly is not the approach the author of this book used.
. The Bible is clear on this point
1 Corinthians 2:1
1 ¶ AND I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
1 Corinthians 2:2
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:3
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1 Corinthians 2:4
4 And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1 Corinthians 2:5
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:6
6 ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
1 ¶ AND I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
1 Corinthians 2:2
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:3
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1 Corinthians 2:4
4 And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1 Corinthians 2:5
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:6
6 ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
1 Corinthians 2:7
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1 Corinthians 2:8
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1 Corinthians 2:9
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1 Corinthians 2:8
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1 Corinthians 2:9
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
Surely the writer of the book never took this approach but he will need to do it some day.
Chapter six Requirements or results
Here, the author shows his lack of knowledge concerning Jewish history. Baptism was certainly known to the Jews of Christ's time. We see this clearly pointed out in John 1:19-27 where it tells us “And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.”
When the Jews asked, "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? " this clearly shows that they were not surprised to see John performing this ordinance, otherwise their question would have been: "What are you doing?" Rather than questioning the rite of baptism, they were only concerned about his authority to perform baptism.
This was the same question they put to Jesus. In Matthew 21:23-26 we read, “And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.” If the Jewish priestly leaders didn't know about baptism they would not have said it was something which was from heaven, but would have readily admitted it was from men.
And the reason for this is because baptism was something they knew of and understood the word of God taught. In the Old Testament it makes reference to this rite when it says in Isaiah 1:16: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil.” Even the apostle Paul made reference to the ancient need for baptism when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2: “MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” So we see that the practice of baptism was understood and performed long before the time of John the Baptist.
Next, the author quotes Acts 2:37-38 which reads, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This is the verse which mainstream Christians use as evidence that baptism is not necessary for salvation. However, they conveniently ignore the words of Jesus at His baptism when “John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him” (Matthew 3:14-15).
If it was necessary for even Jesus to be baptized, how can it be said that we don’t need to follow the example of our Savior? However, if baptism isn’t necessary for salvation, then why did Jesus, just before He ascended into heaven, and therefore the last thing He commanded His disciples to do was to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19)?
He concludes his book by talking about the apostasy. He claims: "LDS apologists produce a flurry of citations from the New Testament proving that an apostasy was predicted, claiming that Paul spoke of this apostasy. Yet it is always assumed, not proved, that any reference to a false teaching, or a rebellion, or to an apostasy, is the facto evidence of `the’ apostasy that Mormon apologists claim took place.”
What the author is trying to say is that there is no Biblical evidence of an apostasy. Rather, we take veiled references to doctrinal problems within the early church and claim that this is proof of an apostasy. This is not the reason why the LDS church believes in an apostasy. History itself provides ample proof that it actually did happen. In fact, the Protestant movement started precisely because they claimed the Catholic church had apostatized from the true teachings of the Bible. Their doctrines were seen as a PROTEST against the established religious teachings of their day. If they didn’t believe there had been an apostasy, there would have been no reason for them to protest in an effort to reform the church. I find it amazing that the very people whose church came into existence because of a belief in an apostasy now refuse to admit that there ever was such a thing as an apostasy. The leaders of the Protestant movement are known as “reformers.” Yet, if there wasn’t an apostasy, there would have been no reason to reform the church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been criticized for claiming that they have “restored” the original teachings of the apostles. However, in principle, this is what the Protestant leaders claimed they were doing with their reformation movement. Thus, we see that we are criticized for doing the very thing which mainstream Christianity praises the Protestants for doing.
An interesting remark from the writer is at pag 124 when he says:" God speaks to the assembly in verse 2 and ask them (Psalm 82:2,6), how long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?" Were such activities occurring in the pre-existent life among unembodied spirits?
Well first of all the first verse is a declaration and ends there and the second verse is clearly an invitation to the readers there is no connection between the two verses. In my Italian Bible, Protestant, there is a full stop after the first verse, but trying to make our friend happy I will remind him that even though he might be right, but it is not, he should keep on mind that Lucifer
Isaiah 14:12
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:13
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
well Lucifer was right there in that council.
Since it seems to the words of the author that his church is going down and the Church of Jesus Christ is going up I suggest to him to reconsider the prophecy of Daniel
Daniel 2:45
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream [is] certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream [is] certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
It is clear then that this prophecy is for the last days and it is clear that the stone cut out of the mountain without hands will fill the whole earth destroying the other kingdoms.
According to the prophesy of Daniel this missionary work would have given an expanding church which would have filled the earth.
On the back cover of the new book "The new Mormon challange"
over 11 million members
over 60.000 full time missionaries, more than ANY OTHER SINGLE missionary sending organization in the world.
more than 310.000 converts annually.
as many as eighty percent of converts come from Protestant background. (In Mormon circle, the saying is"We baptize a Baptist church every week)
Within 15 years, the number of missionaries and converts will roughly double.
Within 80 years, with adherents exceeding 267 million. Mormonism could become the first world religion to arise since Islam
Missionary work is the life for the church, our church is pumping oxygen every day in his heart and is growing, the other churches with an obsolete missionary work are just dying. so if you are aware that just one church is going up while the other ones are going down think about Daniel's prophecy and ponder it because it is fulfilling right now.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)