Questions and Answers > What are the practices of Muslims? > Muslim apologists

■ Dialogues with Muslims – Abdul (Part 3)

The following is the third part of a debate with a Muslim who wanted to promote Islam. Luc is answering the Muslim claims. To protect the identity of both individuals, their names have been replaced with an alias.

5.

Adbul:

(9)

I think the Muslim can prevent the parts that have been unknowingly corrupted with from being considered part of the Good News of Jesus by focusing on the most factual account of it. Incidentally, the first three gospels lend themselves very well to this. In the words of Luke, the authors of these three gospels only tried to write “the story as accurately as possible in ordered form” (Introduction Luke 1:1-4). But this does not apply to the fourth Gospel: the story of John. This was, as he himself says , though clearly with a different purpose in mind. The book should therefore not be understood as the most accurate, and ordered account of the events surrounding the mission of Jesus, but rather as a book whose purpose is to make people believe “the people , as he himself says, Jesus the Christ, the son of God , ‘and that’, by living believe in him ” (John 20:31) .

If I may put it another way, we must conclude that the Gospel of John was a preconceived theological-philosophical purpose while this is not true of the other three Gospels. Hence, unlike John's, these three Gospels are called “synoptic”: this would mean that they relate to an accurate and as orderly as possible summary of events. For this reason, for example, Luke immediately differs from the beginning of his story with the tone of John's story, where Luke in his introduction , emphasizing the accuracy of his story, just as John immediately begins with a theological-philosophical approach: “ in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God. “ That Jesus never said that , or? But now the question: why thought John that it was so important for people to believe that the events surrounding Jesus' mission were related to the proposition that one “by believing in Jesus as the Christ living in him?”

(10)

The book of Acts (chapter 21) presents at that time a conflict between on the one hand the Jewish Christians who still held to the Jewish law and on the other hand the conversion of Paul's work among the Gentile Christians. Of course, Gentile Christians knew nothing of the Jewish law, and they need not have. After all, even according to Paul, he was defending the same position as John's gospel written in Ephesus: namely, that they should believe in the law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Romans 8:2 and Ephesians 2:1-22). And why the law of life, according to Paul ? Indeed, because the law of the spirit of men would have been set free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2 & Ephesians 2) in Jesus. Yes, I get it: it was to say that Jesus redeemed our Paul's purpose - “While we were still sinners ” - with his life from the law of sin and death: it was his purpose to be able to say that one is justified by the blood of Jesus, and that by the flood of the blood one is safeguarded from wrath (Romans 5:8-9). This finally stimulated his conversion work among Gentiles, because they knew nothing of the Jewish law. It was not part of the identity of the people, just as the Shari'a is not the identity of the Western part. I can dislike the non-Jewish Christians of Jewish law so somewhere or empathy. There are really only two ways for a nation to accept the law of another nation: namely preaching an believe or using bombs , ammunition and grenades. Just as the modern West has imposed its laws to other nations. But leaving that there. Extremist to me as this unwanted opinion. You never know. But as I said I mention it because I can imagine it.

After Paul brought his success among the Gentiles through them they praise God. Then James says that Paul teaches the Gentile Christians to be unfaithful to Moses because Paul claimed that the Gentile Christians “did not have their children circumcised and they did not have to keep the Jewish rules” ( Acts 21:21). Now this was not acceptable and had to be refuted. There was absolutely no dispute about this! The only question was how to refute (21:22). The best answer was found immediately. On the one hand Paul had to show publicly that he was still keeping the guidelines, and, on the other hand elders who had written to the non-Jewish Christians who had embraced the faith through Paul's preaching had already known that they also had to keep some guidelines. And so everything was also to be done (21:26). Paul had no option but to explain. Having no choice but to accept himself to the decision of James and the elders of the congregation. Although that would not mean he would hear another sound. Among the Gentile nations, he simply continued stubbornly.

In itself, the position of the group of James, regarding the law is not surprising. For if you read James' credentials in the New Testament, you will see that the Jewish Christians took a different position. He constantly talks about its importance and the interaction between three aspects:

• 1. the good disposition that must be directed toward God,
• 2. behavior toward one's neighbor, and
• 3. the law.

Of course, Paul also spoke about these three aspects - but differently. You are right to claim that the law - despite the fact that it had been exempted - still remained in force everywhere with Paul . But only as a totally different law: namely as a law of the spirit in the pure blood of Jesus. But that very thing undermined the consensus as James knew it. The spirit of the latter was not focused on the purity of Jesus, but the omnipresence of God. Mindful of that omnipresence, according to him it belonged to the neighbor to establish. And the law was with him, not only spiritual. It was the outward manifestation of that legal character of the omnipresence of God. So he took unlike Paul, his central message of: namely, “that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone ” (James 2:24). And how exactly will the passages you quoted it to ensure that the Qur’an itself states that Christians are also read. We are not, as Paul did, justified by faith in the blood of Jesus ( Romans 3:25). No, it is not about faith in the blood of Jesus, but about having faith in God, and exercising good works. So yes, it is indeed those who believe in God and do good works, as confirmed the Qur’an, who is indeed nothing to fear, nor will be sad: Paradise is their destination (Qur'an 2:62, 5:69 and 2:82). We trust Muslims here because God says so in the Qur’an, just as you trust that Paradise is guaranteed to those who believe in the redemptive action of the crucifixion of Jesus. Because Paul said so in his credentials and because John tried to insert this perspective into his account of the life of Jesus. But as I said, because of this bias, I consider John the least reliable gospel.

So to summarize : it is to read in the Qur’an the warning that the gospels have been tampered with. I hope you can understand that the Muslim mindset is to make you read from the gospels to let John's account as much as possible out of consideration. Precisely because of the problems in it in the conflict between James and Paul. The three synoptic gospels can also act as arbiters in this conflict. So contrary to your advice to me, I advise you not to start compulsively reading the Gospel of John, but to start with the more neutral Gospels: the synoptic ones. Because why start with the last gospel written? One that moreover is the most one-sided when it comes to what Paul had left for Gentile Christians to affirm But it is still the Good News of Jesus. As if the neutral objectivity of the Synoptic Evangelists in this case was really secondary to what another Christian like Paul and prejudiced John said? I cannot imagine given that you suggest to me that it should not be the opinion of other Muslims, but only to what the Qur’an says to say, only to what God has revealed. That is the reverse then, or not?

(11)

Jesus was sent to fulfill Jewish political and institutional life with the spirit of holiness, and not to point it out, though as it would completely destroy the vital dimension of the law to the core and one of death and sin. He was strengthened with the Spirit of holiness. It implied that his messianic mission was a thoroughly ethical mission. In order to remain focused on God, he was led more easily than the other prophets, who did not have a messianic mission, but were also heavily involved in the constructive process of achieving justice (the law) among men. I dare say he was the greatest ethical teacher humanity has ever known. That is why in Matthew 5:17-20 he says that we should not think that he came to abolish the law. And the prophets he had come to fulfill. Now of course you could argue that their fulfillment was precisely the spirituality of it as Paul advocated. But with this objection you would miss the point entirely. For what did it mean for Jesus to say this? Now this is what the Synoptic Gospels essentially deal with. Here, then, according to the Qur’an, exists the covenant between God and the people of Israel, namely, in the service of God and showing the virtue of it: that is, in showing the intense focus on God and not in a blood sacrifice. It is love of God with heart, soul and mind (Deuteronomy 6:5-6), and charity (Leviticus 19:18). Or, as the Qur’an puts it, “And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now).” (Qur’an 2:83) Or another passage: “Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;-”. (Qur'an 4:36) Well, what is its relevance according to the Qur'an? Indeed, as I said, it pertains to the human mind and should be directed to God and His attributes, saturated in creation: for example, mercy , justice, love. Then there is also the charity of neighbor: namely, the proposition to treat the neighbor as any human being himself would be treated, that is, among other things, that we should treat the neighbor from a primary focus on the divine “justice” as where the neighbor can claim what belongs to him or her - after all , we ourselves would want, the divine mercy, “where the neighbor is in a vulnerable position and needs help - after all, ourselves would want, the divine “truth” when the neighbor has relevant knowledge about an issue that is not important to him or her - after all, ourselves would want, the divine “peace” when one is involved in a conflict with one's neighbor, and that neighbor begins to show a low propensity for peace - after all , ourselves would want , and so on. The problem with Paul is that his preaching to Gentile Christians sacrificed this aspect in his view of the law, as if it were one of death and sin, lest we be justified by faith in the blood of Jesus. As a Jew, he knew that the divine attributes were embedded in creation and that we could derive them (Romans 1:20). But he did not realize that this perspective on reality is always accompanied by the life-affirming “yes” of the law. The actualization of important divine attributes in society simply always requires fewer obligations of the law. If we say we want a just society, we must also make concrete commitments about how to achieve justice. So we will have to make agreements about the amount of money and/or other things we make available. Here we have to stick to this, but only from the realization that in the end it never goes, but always comes to the love of God, and that from that focus we shape God's love for our neighbor: that we must always focus our hearts on those divine attributes. This is what Jesus tried to teach us, and this is what the Qur'an affirmed as part of his messianic mission. Or, as the Qur'an says: “Yet there are men who take (for worship) others besides Allah, as equal (with Allah): They love them as they should love Allah. But those of Faith are overflowing in their love for Allah. If only the unrighteous could see, behold, they would see the penalty: that to Allah belongs all power, and Allah will strongly enforce the penalty.” (Qur’an 2:165)

May God bless you.

Abdul

6.

Luc:

(9)

<< If I may put it another way, we must conclude that the Gospel of John was a preconceived theological-philosophical purpose while this is not true of the other three Gospels. >>

It contradicts the earlier mentioned evidence about the reliability of the New Testament that there would be something about the Gospel of John. John was one of the most beloved disciples of Jesus (Matthew 17:01 , Mark 5:37 and 13:03). He later became one of the apostles (Galatians 2:09 ). He was the brother of James (Matthew 4:21 and 10:02, Mark 1:19, 3:17 and 10:35). So he was an eyewitness to the events in the life of Jesus Christ. You can read that he speaks from the perspective of being active in the events of Jesus that he has a good knowledge of geography and the Israelite government. John is as disciple and apostle of Jesus superior to the Day of Resurrection, and so is the divinely inspired books of the New Testament, he wrote (see Qur'an 5:111). What you call the “theological-philosophical” texts in the beginning of the Gospel of John to a description of the message of Jesus Christ, is formulated in Greek thinking, so it corresponds well with people in Europe and other Western countries thinking. In addition, John has more content than the others, because he has become very old and the heard from the most important disciples of Jesus Christ. As a result, John had a good overview of the core of the message of Jesus Christ. It is therefore particularly worth reading the Gospel of John.

(10)

<< So he took unlike Paul, his central message of: namely , “that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone ” (James 2:24). >> The apostle James does not contradict the apostle Paul in Romans 3:28 because they are not talking about the same kind of faith. James speaks of a mere profession of faith, a dead and lifeless faith. Paul about a true faith in Jesus Christ, his righteousness and works of love, and this produces peace, joy and comfort in the spirit. So both apostles have the same vision. (11) << I dare say he was the greatest ethical teacher humanity has ever known. That is why in Matthew 5:17-20 he says that we should not think that he came to abolish the law. >>

You are right to imagine that Jesus was "the greatest ethical teacher that mankind has ever known" by which you confirm that Jesus is more than a "normal" human nature, that he has an "extraordinary" nature. In the Qur'an there is a deeper structure of Jesus Christ, as more and more Muslims are discovering that you can explore with a prayerful and open attitude: Jesus Christ has a special and very "extraordinary" nature. Receiving this revelation will bring true liberation to your soul. To save you the long road, it is better to accept that Jesus Christ is God who forgives your sins, and so you can get, including the certainty of entering paradise. A real direct relationship with the Most High and Living God.

It meant that he did not only give people liberation from the law, but rather taught the opposite: namely, the intensification of keeping the law. And the intensification involved the purification of the minds of the people, an intensification that was more productive than the way the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees were doing things (Matthew 5:20). In any case, the intention was that the people would join as worthy of the Kingdom of God. Jesus did not guarantee the kingdom of God, to his followers without requirements. No! In order to enter the kingdom of God, he required of his followers a much more intense devotion to the law. I would say start with his Sermon on the Mount as it is presented. It is striking how he defines his audience: the poorer and weaker members of society - and emphatically not the wicked blind leaders of it who were described as hypocrites, and hypocrites whom he supported as children of Satan, as vipers and adders (Matthew 23). And why did he call them that? Now, because he thought they were like tombs: that would mean that those authorities, though they looked beautiful on the outside, were nevertheless full of decay and lawlessness on the inside; that though the outside of a cup was cleansed, yet the inside remained filthy; whereas they ought first to cleanse the inside, that the outside might be cleansed; they kept the least matters of the law, such as tithing of coin, while they neglected the greater matters of the law, namely, justice, mercy, and faithfulness. For these were the important things to do (Matthew 23:23-28). The point is that he did not reject the law, but rather that the administration of the law took on the right disposition. "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8).

That God may bless,

Luc

Epilogue

The third stage of a debate with a Muslim promoting Islam. The debate turned into a normal pattern as on social media. The Muslim comes up with the usual discussion points against Christianity. Both are using Bible verses and Qur’an verses to supoort their claims.The Christian gives short answers to the Muslim claims and keeps the focus on soul winning.