Christianity and Islam IV; Muhammad’s Claim of Being the Prophet Like Unto Moses

(On Deuteronomy 18:18 and Islam)

INTRODUCTION

Muhammad claimed that the Bible foretold his prophethood. Today many Muslim apologists claim that the term "brethren" in Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18:18, could include anyone who is a descendant of Abraham. They believe that since Muhammad was an assumed descendant of Ishmael, Abraham's first son, then Muhammad qualifies as a 'brother' to the Israelites, and is indeed the prophet who Moses foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. However, the New Testament tells us that Jesus is the prophet Moses foretold (Acts 3:22). We will examine the biblical evidence and see if Muhammad has a claim to be the prophet foretold by Moses.

CONTEXT OF “BRETHREN”

To begin with, the term used for 'brethren' is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament, (Taurat, Zabur). What must be addressed is the context for the term 'brethren'. If the context of how it is used means anyone loosely related to the Israelites, then perhaps it is possible that Muhammad could be the prophet Moses foretold. If the context means that the future prophet is to be an Israelite, then Muhammad could not be that prophet.

In one sense, since Muslims and Christians believe that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve, then all of us are brothers and sisters. But Muslims insist that the meaning of "brethren" in the Deuteronomy 18:18 verse is one who is a descendant of Abraham, not Adam. Is their definition valid? What is the context for the use of the term "brethren" in the Old Testament, and specifically, Deuteronomy?

Here are three different ways the term 'brethren' is used in Deuteronomy:

1) used for relating the 12 tribes together; 
2) used to relate the Levites amongst themselves as brothers, as in 18:7; 3) used to relate the Israelites to the Edomites, as in 2:4.

The Hebrew word is 'awkh'. It generally means 'a brother' used in the widest sense of literal relationships, and metaphorically, having an affinity or resemblance. 'Awkh' is also translated (in the King James Version as 'another' as in 1 Chr 26:12, ('relatives' in New International Version), as 'like' in Ezekiel: 18.10, and as 'other' in Genesis 13:11.

Brown's Hebrew lexicon also reinforced Strong's definition. It states that the word can be translated in various ways: 1) as brother, meaning born of the same mother, 2) indefinite relative, a kinship in a wider sense, as in Lot being a 'brother' of Abraham in Genesis 13:8... Lot was Abram's nephew, not literal brother, or the Israelite tribes being brothers, or as in Israel and Edom being brothers, and likewise for Israel and Judah.

It is also used to denote close friendships like 2 Samuel 1:26 - the relationship between David and Jonathan, or used for allies - as in Amos 1:9.

Brown's also states that it is used as a figure of resemblance as in Job 30:29... Job was not the literal brother to a jackal, Job was identifying with being abandoned. And, it is used to denote the cherubim facing each other in Exodus 25:20, and as 'the sight' of a crocodile in Job 41:9!

Another verse is in Proverbs 18:9 "One who is slack in his work is brother to him who destroys". Again, the use is metaphorical.

All of the above shows that the term 'awkh' can be used in various ways; part of its specific meaning being defined by the context in which it is used.

So, digging deeper into the contexts of how "brethren" is used we start with the book of Deuteronomy. The first clue to the context of "brethren" is from the purpose of the book of Deuteronomy itself. The name Deuteronomy means 'copy of the law'; the law for who? - the Israelites, no one else. This book was given specifically to the Israelites, it was Moses' farewell address to them. A large part of it was a review of the laws between God and the Israelites, and its reading was to prepare them to enter into the promised land.

Next, we look at how the term 'brethren' (King James Version) is used throughout Deuteronomy. We find that it is used about 20 times, at least 14 times it means 'fellow Israelites' - members of the 12 tribes. Twice it is used to ref. the Edomites, and once for Levitical brothers, once for literal brothers (25:5), and twice for the verses in question: 18:15,18.

Therefore, the overwhelming majority of times the context is used for referring to 'fellow Israelites'.

We now examine the verses in question, to see if we can find any clues to the context in question. We start with verse 14.

The New International Version uses 'brothers' usually in place of the King James Version 'brethren'. Words in ( ) parenthesis are mine. From Deut. 18:

14: "The nations you (i.e. the Israelites) will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you (the Israelites), the Lord your (the Israelites) God has not permitted you (the Israelites) to do so.

15: The Lord your God will raise up for you (the Israelites) a prophet like me from among your (the Israelites) own "brothers". You (the Israelites) must listen to him.

16: For this is what you (the Israelites) asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you (the Israelites) said, "Let us (the Israelites) not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we (the Israelites) will die."

17: The Lord said to me "What they (the Israelites) say is good.

18: I will raise up for them (the Israelites) a prophet like you from among their (the Israelites) brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them (the Israelites) everything I command him.

19: If anyone (the Israelites) does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him (an Israelite) to account.

It's very clear here that the context for 'brethren' is from amongst the fellow Israelites. Not an Edomite, or other non-Israelite, who were not given the law, not part of the group Moses was addressing. Moses meant that the prophet would come out of the 12 Israelite tribes.

We should also try to cross reference to other verses in Deuteronomy to see if we can get additional understanding of the context. In Deuteronomy 2:4, 8, 'brethren' was used in conjunction with the Edomites, who were basically their cousins. Moses plainly described who the brothers were... what the context of them being brethren was (i.e. Edomites being the descendants of Esau). By understanding the context here we would not confuse the Edomite 'brethren' with the Levitical 'brethren' found in 18:7, or the Israelite 'brethren' found in 1:16 or 33:24. Edomite 'brethren' would clearly not fit the context for 18:7, 1:16, or 33:24.

In Deut 17:15 a very strong statement is given regarding who "brothers" means in the verses in chapter 18:

"Be sure to appoint over you the King the Lord your God chooses. He must be "FROM AMONG YOUR OWN BROTHERS". Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a "BROTHER ISRAELITE".

Compare these terms with 18:15 -

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me FROM AMONG YOUR OWN BROTHERS. You must listen to him."

Clearly, this verse has much in common with 17:15. Moses did not add 'brother Israelite', because they understood what he was talking about based upon what he had said just a few moments earlier in Chapter 17. The context is the same for both. The future prophet had to be a fellow Israelite.

Therefore, the weight of the evidence for understanding the context - and who actually the "brethren" were, shows clearly that the future prophet had to be from the 12 tribes. Jesus fulfills that requirement, Muhammad does not.

We should be thorough in our search for the context of how "brethren" is used. Lets go back and see if we can find any context that calls the descendants of Ishmael, or the descendants of the Abraham's other sons "brethren" to the Israelites.

Genesis 25:1-4 lists some of Abraham's sons. Note in verse 5 that Isaac was the main inheritor. His sons listed here are from his concubine Keturah, they are: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Some of these brothers descendants were the Asshurites, the Letushites, and the Leummites.

[Note in verses 25:5,6 that Abraham left everything he owned to Isaac, but while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines, and sent them away from his son Isaac, to the land of the east.]

Lets examine these sons, and their descendants, and see if there is any reference to them being "brethren" to the Israelites.

Zimran - only mentioned in Genesis 25:2 and 1 Chron 1:32
Jokshan - He is only mentioned in Genesis 25:2 and 1 Chron 1:32, but his descendants are named - Sheba and Dedan.
Medan - only mentioned in Genesis 25:2 and 1 Chron 1:32
Midian - His descendants are mentioned with regards to the Israelites. They will be addressed in a few paragraphs.
 Ishbak - only mentioned in Genesis 25:2 and 1 Chron 1:32
Shuah - only mentioned in Genesis 25:2.

We should see if Sheba or Dedan (descendants of Jokshan) are called "brethren" to the Israelites. Dedan - is mentioned several times, often with Sheba. In no place are Dedan or his descendants called "brethren" to the Israelites. Sheba - same as with Dedan. When Sheba's descendants are mentioned, they are never referred to as "Kin" or "brethren" in any way. Ref. the story of the Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon. Note her comment to Solomon in 1 Chron 9:8. She acknowledges how God has blessed Solomon and chosen Israel. In Isaiah 60:6, Sheba, Midian, and Ephah are mentioned as being distinct peoples apart from the Israelites.

Now, the sons of Dedan are mentioned in 25:3. "Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim. These peoples are never referred to as "brethren" of the Isrealites. They are not even mentioned beyond 25:3.

So far, not one reference to the other sons of Abraham, or their descendants being 'brethren' to the Israelites.

Next, we will examine Midian.

The Midianites are mentioned in Numbers chapters 25, 31, 10, 22. Not once are they called "brethren", or anything closely related to that. If anything, they were mortal enemies to the Israelites. Refer to Num. 25:16, 17. These people are Abraham's descendants, yet God ordered the Israelites to destroy them. Since Ishmael was Midian's brother, wouldn't it follow that Ishmael's descendants would not be considered "brethren" in the way the Midianites were not considered "brethren"?

What about Midian's sons, and any specific ref. to any of their particular descendants as being "brethren" to the Israelites?

Going throughout the OT, we find that Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, Eldaah are never mentioned as being "brethren" to the Israelites.

Finally, we come to Ishmael and his descendants, and for good measure, we'll throw in the "Hagarites". Ishmael's sons are mentioned in Genesis 25:13-18. Never are they or their descendants referred to as "brethren" to the Israelites. The Ishmaelites are mentioned in Genesis 37. Not once are they referred to as brethren of the sons of Jacob. They were not considered brethren.

The Hagarites are mentioned in Psalm 83:6, along with the Ishmaelites. They are portrayed as the enemies of God. Likewise they are mentioned in 1 Chron 5:10. Again, they are the enemies of God's people - the Israelites. They are never mentioned as "brethren" to the Israelites.

There are two interesting references to Ishmael and his sons. One is found in Genesis 16:12. The other is in Genesis 25:18. 25:18 says:

"His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers." Here is the only implication that Ishmael's sons were called "brethren" to possibly the Israelites. But if this verse is taken in context with Genesis 16:12 it is shown that "brother" were immediate relatives. So, 25:18 looks like Ishmael's sons were hostile towards each other.

The context of this passage, taken with the references concerning the Ishmaelite, Hagarites, Midianites, etc. show that these people were not considered "brethren" to the Israelites. Therefore by judging from the references it would not be correct to consider the descendants of Ishmael to be "brethren" of the Israelites. There is no support for the Muslim’s assertion that the descendants of Ishmael were considered "brethren" to the Israelites. In several cases, these descendants are considered enemies of Israel and God.

The only non-Israelite people to be called brethren, that I'm aware of, are the Edomites. Esau was Jacob's brother. Jacob was the father of the Israelites. That seems to be as far back as the term "brethren" goes. And, Esau was a descendant of Issac, not Ishmael. Since the promise to the descendants was named thru Isaac, it is understandable for Esau's descendants to be considered "brethren" to the Israelites.

Read Numbers 20:14-21. It details the conflict between the two 'brethren' nations of Esau and Jacob.

Muslims object to Muhammad being ruled out as the prophet, and assert the following:

"Jesus never claimed to be the prophet Moses foretold".

Jesus never said directly "I am the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18". But He said that He was a prophet, and probably meant that He was that prophet. Other parts of the N.T. declare Him to be that prophet. Let's start with Christ's implications then go on:

1)-Luke 7:39 - the Pharisee said to himself, 'if this man were a prophet...Jesus knew his thoughts and addressed them, proving to the Pharisee that he was a prophet.

2)-John 5:46 - Jesus said "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he (Moses) wrote about me." Moses did write about Jesus; Jesus is the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18. Jesus claimed to be the prophet Moses foretold.

3)-In various places, at various times, various people called Jesus the 'prophet' of Deuteronomy 18:18, yet Jesus never corrected them, rebuked them, or told them otherwise. He always accepted those particular statements. When the Pharisees called him otherwise, He set them straight. Matt. 21:11, John 1:45, 6:14, 7:40, Luke 7:16, 24:19, etc.

4)-Jesus did call Himself a prophet - John 4:44

5)-After His ascension His disciples emphatically said He was that prophet: Acts 3:22, 7:37.

CONCLUSION ON "FROM AMONG YOUR BRETHREN"

All of this shows that Muhammad could not be the prophet Moses foretold. The only acceptable, logical context for Moses' words is that "the prophet" must be an Israelite. No non-Israelite can meet the requirement. Muhammad was not an Israelite and thus he could not have fulfilled the conditions Moses set forth. Jesus is the prophet Moses foretold.

"LIKE UNTO ME"

Another point often brought up by Muslims is that Moses said that the future prophet would be "like unto me". Muslims then list the similarities between Moses and Muhammad, and the dis-similarities between Moses and Jesus as proof that Muhammad is the foretold prophet.

There can be found similarities and differences between all men. What needs to be identified are the crucial attributes that the future prophet would have to possess to be "like unto Moses".

Here is the Deut. 18 passage again from the NRSV:

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet. This is what you requested of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: "If I hear the voice of the Lord my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die." Then the Lord replied to me: "They are right in what they have said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command."

So, the first requirement is

(1) This future prophet is to speak the words that God puts in his mouth.

Additional implicit requirements to make this prophet "like unto Moses" can be found in the last verses in Deuteronomy 34.10-12:

"And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, (2) whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the (3) signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great and terrible deeds which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel."

The three requirements we find are:

1) this future prophet is to speak the words that God puts in his mouth.

2)  this future prophet would speak with God face to face

3)  this future prophet would perform miracles, signs, and

wonders.

How do Jesus and Muhammad compare to these requirements?

#1 the future prophet is to speak the words that God puts in his mouth.

JESUS:

Jesus said that He spoke God's word; he heard directly from God. John 7:16, 17 - "My teaching is not mine but his who sent me. Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own." John 8:28 - "So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me."

MUHAMMAD:

Muhammad heard the Quran from a spirit he believed to be Gabriel. Muhammad repeated the words that this "spirit" spoke.

The Quran, chapter 53:2-5 - "Your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived, nor does he speak of his own desire. It is an inspiration this is inspired, which one (Gabriel) of mighty powers has taught him."

Muhammad fails the requirement because he did not hear from God directly. In fact, the Bible contains warnings about angels teaching false messages: 2 Cor. 11:14 - "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades an angel of light." Gal. 1:8 - "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"

#2 The future prophet would speak with God face to face.

JESUS:

While he was on earth, he spoke with God face to face.

John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."

Matthew 17:5 - "While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!"

MUHAMMAD:

As stated before, Muhammad never spoke with God directly. The entire Quran was given to him through a medium - a spirit. Was the spirit from God? If not, then we can conclude that it was an evil spirit that was deceiving Muhammad.

I'll note that after Moses spoke with God face to face, his face glowed with the glory of God. Jesus was transfigured. (Exodus 34:29, Matthew 17:2). Muhammad was never transfigured; he never radiated the glory of God.

3) The future prophet would perform miracles, signs, and wonders.

JESUS:

Jesus performed many miracles. Read Luke chapters 5, 7, and 8 to find some of them.

MUHAMMAD:

The Quran shows that Muhammad performed no miracles. Even the people who did not believe in him pointed out that Muhammad lacked miracles.

The Quran, chapter 6:57, 58 - "Say: "For me, I (work) on a clear sign from my Lord, but you reject Him. What you would see hastened (a miracle) is not in my power. The command (to perform a miracle) rests with none by Allah: He declares the Truth, and He is the best of judges. Say: if what you would see hastened (a miracle) were in my power, the matter would be settled at once between you and me...

The Quran, chapter 28:48 - "...They (the people who did not believe in Muhammad) say, "Why aren't miracles sent to him like those sent to Moses?"

It must be noted that the Hadith records some fanciful miracles, but these are purely mythical, because they contradict the Quran's statements about Muhammad unable to perform a miracle. Some of those Hadith "miracles" are simple copycat miracles taken from Bible stories.

A FINAL COMPARISON :

One very important similarity between Moses and Jesus was that they each mediated a covenant. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant (Testament); Christ of the New Covenant, or Testament. (Exodus 19 and 20, Hebrews 12:24). Muhammad did not bring a covenant. Muhammad's Islam is but a synthesis of Jewish, Christian, and Pagan religious themes mixed with Muhammad's own ideas.

CONCLUSION ON "LIKE UNTO ME".

Jesus satisfied the requirements to be "like unto Moses". Muhammad did not. Jesus fulfilled the requirements, Muhammad fails the requirements. Jesus spoke God's direct words, Muhammad did not speak God's direct words, he spoke a spirit's words. Jesus spoke with God face to face, Muhammad did not speak with God face to face. Jesus performed many miracles, Muhammad performed no miracles.

Jesus is the prophet Moses foretold, Muhammad cannot be the prophet Moses foretold.

(Adapted from Disciple Silas)

Apostolically Speaking,

☩ Jerry L Hayes

Christianity and Islam III: False Muslim Charges Against Christians

Christian Bible Has been Corrupted

Muslims.  you challenge us by saying, “Your Bible is corrupted.” Prove it.

This is our defense: Our Bible is the same today (except for copyist errors) as it was in the sixth century when Muhammed accepted it as truth. His only objection to Christianity was that its people did not follow their Bible - which your prophet accepted as the word of Allah.

Now, if it is as you say, that it has been corrupted - prove it.

Islam must show where the Bible has been corrupted SINCE the sixth century - it cannot!

Our bible appears today just as it did in the 2nd and 3rd centuries when the canon was determined. That is our defense.

According to Qur’an Christians went astray after the death of Jesus.

"And when God will say: ‘O Jesus, did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides God?’ He will reply: ‘Glory be to Thee! it was not for me to say what I had no right to say. If I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen. I said to them naught save as Thou didst command me: Serve God, my Lord and your Lord; and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die Thou wast the Watcher over them. And Thou art Witness of all things’." (5:116, 117) This extract proves the following:

1. Jesus shall deny preaching the erroneous present-day Christian doctrine of his divinity; 
2. He shall confirm the teaching he actually gave to his people; 
3. So long as Jesus was among his people, his followers held correct
   beliefs; 
4. It was after Jesus’ tawaffa (translated above as ‘Thou didst cause
   me to die’) that their beliefs became corrupted. 

From the viewpoint of Muslims, Jesus is returning as a Muslim, and he will break the cross (destroy Christianity) and be a slave to Islam. Muslims believe that Jesus will also abolish the jizya, which will leave Jews and Christians with only two options: convert to Islam or die!

Qur’an  9:29 calls for the extortion of Jew and Christians. (Jizya)

9.29
 YUSUFALI:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The following is what the Islamic scriptures (the ahadith) say about the return of Jesus.

Muslims believe that Jesus will come back to fight for Islam, not Christianity!

Book 37, Number 4310:
 Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657:
 Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — ‘And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them.” (4.159) (See Fateh Al Bari, Page 302 Vol 7)

So, according to the Muslim belief, when Judgment Day arrives, Jesus will judge the people by the words of the Koran and not of the Holy Bible.

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 658:
 Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Quran and not by the law of Gospel (Fateh-ul Bari page 304 and 305 Vol 7)

PLEASE do not be fooled when Muslims say that they respect Jesus! They are manipulating you with semantics.

My Thoughts On Racism In America In 2020

1. Race exists. Should not have, but it is with us now. What I mean to say is: Adam and Eve were one. Not white nor black. If they were white, the black skin would not likely have come from that; if black, the white skin would not likely have come from that. They were most likely brown. Sin drove them out of the garden, and sin, once again, divided humanity into groups at the Tower. The segregation at the Tower established the foundation for different races.

2. Race is a challenge for all. It is the fallen human nature. Each race has a default position of "self preservation" that requires a regenerative work, to take place on the very soul, to overcome.

3. Just as each individual has a soul, so, too, there is a sense in which we may speak of souls of different races.

4. So, then, IMHO the "natural" position of all races is to be prejudice toward one another.

5. All races wear two faces of slavery: the face of the slaver, and the face of the enslaved. Blacks have made slaves of others and been slaves to others. Whites have made slaves of others and been slaves to others.

6. The word "slave" comes from the word "slav." The "slavic" people (who were/are white) populated/populate Eastern Europe (still do). So many of them were enslaved to the Muslims of Spain in the 9th century A.D. that any person who was bound to servitude was given their name. Much the same way the "N" word (which is only an uneducated pronouncing of "black") became associated with the American slave.

7. Sadly, during our epoch of history, slavery took on the identity of a "race" - the African Black. But, this has been true only in our segment of history. In the past, as I pointed out, the face of slavery was slav -- white.

8. America has a particular challenge before her as a nation and people: Here, the slaves were black and the masters were white. The blacks still feel resentment toward all whites, and feel entitled to what they see as white wealth gained at the expense of their ancestors. This is too often the "family" conversation around the dinner table and the hearth side of the black home. So much so that the young generation grows up with a feeling of entitlement which produces a thuggish trait at the street level. (If the reader will excuse a reference to a personal experience: When My second son was in middle school I was pastoring in Huntsville, Al. it was winter and I had just purchased my son a new coat. One day, on the playground of school, a group of black boys tore the new coat from him and took turns urinating on it. Why? Because the white boy had a new coat and they didn't, so they felt entitled. This trait is fostered and nourished in the black home, far too much.) The present generation of whites in America respond with resentment toward the blacks that they see as a race of ingrates and far too often thuggish.

9. The American U. S. nation fought the bloodiest of all our wars which settled the sad state of affairs of slavery. The blood of 700, 000 whites washed slavery from our country. Though a Southerner, born and bread, I say with some pride that my family (Southerners all) took the correct side in that war -- the Union's.

10. White law makers established the Affirmative Action Laws and programs in America which discriminated against the white race "by law". I have lived and raised my children in a nation that discriminated against us --by law. Laws, that we whites imposed on ourselves and our children.

11. I am of what is called "The Baby Boomer Generation." My generation had made great headway in healing the rift between the white and black races, unitl -- the administration of Barak Obama. He loaded his administration with black activists that for nine years (a decade) rubbed salt into the racial wounds of America. The Post Obama America, is more racially divided than the Pre-Obama America.

12. I cannot necessarily speak for others, but only myself: I had come to a place where I did not see race when I looked at a black person. I saw only another person. Per-Obama. I was a white minister in a black Pentecostal denomination, I happily consented for my only daughter to date and marry a black Christian man from Jamaica, I have a bi-racial granddaughter and grandson -- I am so proud of them both, and I served joyfully as the adjutant to my black bishop in this and other countries. Now? The blacks MAKE, FORCE, us to see race each time we look into their faces. And what we see, we resent. this is not good.

13. Historically, all races have been slaves and have moved on -- put that chapter of their history to rest. These races have taken their place at the table of human society and enjoy community among each other. Enough is enough, already. Stop working so hard to made white America see you as slaves to be emancipated. We have done that already. Take pride in the "skin in the game" your ancestors invested in your behalf. Now come walk with us as equals, and let us be Americans together, brothers.

JLH

Christianity and Islam II: Some Differences

The Person of Jesus Christ vs a Book

Here is a major difference between Christianity and Islam: To Christians the Gospel is a person - Jesus Christ. To Islam the gospel is a book: the Qur’an.

Another, similar, difference between Christianity and Islam is: To Islam the Word of God is the Qur’an—a book; to Christians the Word of God is a person - Jesus Christ.

Christianity did (and could again) exist without its book; Islam could not exist without the Qur'an. The Christian faith is founded on the person of Jesus Christ and not on any writer document. This is true because it was the Church that gave us the New Testament, and not the New Testament that give us the Church. This cannot be said of Islam and its book. Islam did not exist until its book was written in spite of Islam wanting to make Adam a Muslim. Without the Qur’an there is no Islam. And here is Islam’s Achilles heel. Their faith rests upon a written book that is questionable, at best. As time goes forward, and the information and social media continues to advance, soon everyone from the grade schooler to the centurion will know that the Qur'an is only the musings of an illiterate Arab, and not the inspired Word of God.

On Biblical Inspiration vs Qur’anic Inspiration:

The Christian concept of “inspiration” of the Bible is different than the Muslim's concept of “inspiration” of the Qur'an. When a Muslim tries to view the Bible with his Qur'anic idea of "inspiration" he is destined to confusion.

Christian: God “inspires” men with truths, then those persons write those truths in their own words. The “inspiration” is from God, but the crafting of the manuscript is man's.

Islam: The angel read to the Prophet the book from heaven, which was the very words of Allah. Then the Prophet had the words of Allah transcribed into a book —- the Qur'an.

For the two sides to understand one another, Christians and Muslims must understand what the other understands as “inspiration.”

An example is Matthew's use of the term “Kingdom of heaven” and the other gospel writers' use of the term “Kingdom of God.” A personal “crafting” of the message is evident. Demonstrating this further is Paul's humanity which comes through in more than one place, e.g. the anger displayed in his writing of the Galatians epistle, and then there is Luke's use of medical terms, because he was a physician. An illustration can be found in a message in tongues in a church service: when the interpretation is given it is just that, the interpretation, not translation. Is the "interpretation" not inspired because it is not a word-for-word “translation”—of course not.

Islam Has No Father, Christianity Does 

The teaching of Islam is that Allah is a non-relational deity. Man can never have a loving relationship with Allah, not really. The Bible, throughout, makes it clear that Yahweh God is our Father and we are His sons and daughters. Sadly, however, for the Muslim, of the 99 names of Allah given in the Qur’an, not one of them is “father.” 

The sixth line of The Apostolic Creed states: “Thereby, and because of creation, reasonably termed the Father.” 

Idea of “FATHER” is one of progenitor, nourisher, protector and upholder. In the Old Testament the concept of Yahweh as Father is not as fully developed as in the New Testament; although, He is acknowledged as such by the Psalmist (68:5; 89:26), and the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (see Isa 9:6; 63:16; 64:8 and Jer 3:19; 31:9 respectively). Moreover, the New Testament magnified His capacity as creator, nourisher, protector, and upholder of all things in heaven and earth, both visible and invisible (Col 1:16), by His eternal Word (see John 1:1-3 and Heb 11:3 respectively). God’s Fatherhood is abundantly demonstrated in both Testaments. 

These fact sets the deity of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures apart from the deity of the Islamic Qur’an. Of the much touted 99 names of Allah in the Qur’an, not one of them is Father. It is acknowledged that for God to be one’s Father implies relationship. Therefore, the God of the Bible is a God of relationship, unlike the god of the Qur’an, who is impersonal and un-relational. Quran 7:180 states: “And to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them.” Alas, since none of his names is “Father”, no Muslim may invoke Allah as “Father”.

The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews writes of the Father-hood of God on this wise: “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Heb 12:9; cf Zech 12:1). The prophet Malachi acknowledges one Father, who is the one God that created us (Mal 2:10). Congruent with all this is the apostle Paul, who writes: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,...” (1 Cor 8:6). Therefore, the Creed states correctly that because of His acts of creation, it is reasonable to term (call) the one solitary God, the Father. 

“The Father is He to whom all that exists owes its origin. He is in Christ; and through Christ, He is the source of all things. Moreover, His existence is existence in itself, and He does not derive His existence from anywhere else. Rather, from Himself, and in Himself, He possesses the actuality of His being. He is infinite because He, Himself, is not contained in something else, and all else is within Him. He is always beyond location, because He is not contained; always before the ages, because time comes from Him.... God, however, is present everywhere; and everywhere He is totally present. 

“Thus, He transcends the realm of understanding. Outside of Him there is nothing, and it is eternally His characteristic that He shall always exist. This is the truth of the mystery of God, And of the impenetrable nature which this name Father expresses; God is invisible, unutterable, and infinite. In His presence, let a word about to be spoken remain silent; let a mind attempting to investigate admit it’s weariness; let an understanding which attempts to comprehend admit its own limitation. Yet, He has, as we have said, in the word Father a name to indicate His nature; but He is Father as such. For He does not, as humans do, receive His Fatherhood from elsewhere. He Himself is unbegotten and eternal; and it is His property,  eternally in Himself, that He shall always be.” (Hilary of Poitiers, A.D. 310-367)

To be continued:

Apostolically Speaking,

☩ Jerry L Hayes