Augustine Of Hippo - Tumblr Posts
The Quran: Revelation or Forgery?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
Did Muhammad Exist?
Before we embark on a brief criticism of the Quran, it’s important to note that there is “very little biographical information” (Wiki) concerning the historicity of its founder, Muhammad:
Attempts to distinguish between the
historical elements and the unhistorical
elements of many of the reports of
Muhammad have not been very successful
(Wiki).
(see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Views_of_secular_historians).
Of course, this opens up the possibility of whether or not the unknown author of the Quran invented the Muhammad tradition to bolster his credibility. In order to determine the answer to this question, it is crucial to consider the evidence of *intertextuality* in the Quran, that is to say, the literary dependence of the Quran on earlier texts and sources.
——-
How historically reliable is the Quran?
Firstly, with regard to source criticism——that is, the sources that the Quran’s message is derived from——there are some very serious issues involved. For example, there are well-known parallelisms between the Quran and the extra-biblical, non-inspired book of Talmud (e.g. Surah 5:32; cf. Sanhedrin 37a) as well as borrowing from Christian apocryphal works that were written hundreds of years after the purported events and which claim to be legitimate Christian gospels but are not. Case in point, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is thought to
be Gnostic in origin. . . . Early Christians
regarded the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as
inauthentic and heretical. Hippolytus
identified it as a fake and a heresy in his
Refutation of All Heresies, and his
contemporary Origen referred to it in a
similar way in a homily written in the early
third century. Eusebius rejected it as a
heretical ‘fiction’ in the third book of his
fourth-century Church History, and Pope
Gelasius I included it in his list of heretical
books in the fifth century. While non-
canonical in Christianity, the Infancy Gospel
of Thomas contains many miracles and
stories of Jesus referenced in the Qur'an,
such as Jesus giving life to clay birds (Wiki).
So, the Quran clearly employs Jewish and Christian apocryphal works that were never accepted as canonical or as “inspired” either by Jews or Christians. Thus, at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious.
Secondly, in 632 CE, following Muhammad’s death, the Battle of Yamama ensued where a great number of those who had supposedly retained the Quran in their memory (hafiz) actually died. How then can Muslims claim the preservation of the Quran through memory and oral transmission?
Thirdly, the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world as well as the most scrutinized book in history, and one which has a critical edition. By contrast, the Quran has not been critically scrutinized rigorously in the same manner, nor does it have a critical edition, nor is the manuscript evidence made available to scholars for serious study. There’s a secrecy surrounding it that seems to prevent scholarly investigations. For example, because it lacks a critical edition, there are no footnotes in the Quran to notify the reader about manuscript evidence or textual discrepancies or omissions, such that “(some verses eaten by a goat; Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, p.39) or that (Umar records the missing verses; Bukhari 8.82.816 & 817).
Fourthly, Orientalists have often questioned the historical authenticity of the Quran by charging Uthman ibn Affan (the 3rd Caliph of Islam) of consigning variant copies of the Quran to the flames during his reign.
Fifthly, the controlled transmission of the Quran makes it impossible to know what was the original. Hence its textual integrity is seriously compromised. By contrast, in the case of the New Testament, for example, since no one person controlled all the manuscripts, it would be impossible to uniformly corrupt all the documents. In the case of the Quran, however, the text was in fact controlled by one person, the khalifa, as attested by Uthman's authority to recall and uniformly revise all the manuscripts. Therefore, it would have been extremely easy for the Quran to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner. For example, the “Sanaa manuscript,” which contains earlier developments of the Quran, demonstrates textual variances that diverge from the Uthman copy.
In conclusion, the Quran doesn’t allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us that such errors existed!
——-
The Quran is Based on Dubious Sources
Besides the numerous and traceable Judeo-Christian apocryphal works that the author used within the Quran itself, he also got a lot of his ideas from a group that was an offshoot of the Ebionites called the “Sabians,” variously known as Mandaeans or Elcesaites. The Sabians followed Hermeticism and adored John the Baptizer:
Occasionally,
Mandaeans are called
‘Christians of Saint
John’ . . . the ‘Sabians’
are described several
times in the Quran as
People of the Book,
alongside Jews and
Christians (Wiki).
According to Origen and Eusebius, the Sabians used an extra-biblical book that they claimed was given by an Angel (maybe another idea adopted by Muhammad?) to deny portions of Scripture as well as the writings of Paul! So, this idea of challenging Christianity and claiming to have received a new revelation from an angel is quite common in ancient times. It is not unique to Islam. Others had made similar claims. Thus, without completely rejecting the possibility of *revelation* in at least some portions of the Quran, the majority of its theological narratives are largely based on dubious and questionable sources, derived from spurious texts that were under the radar of heresiologists across the ancient world!
——-
Two Apocryphal Works Employed by the Quran to Deny the Crucifixion of Jesus
//Second Treatise of the Great Seth is an apocryphal Gnostic writing discovered in the Codex VII of the Nag Hammadi codices and dates to around the third century. The author is unknown, and the Seth referenced in the title appears nowhere in the text. Instead Seth is thought to reference the third son of Adam and Eve to whom gnosis was first revealed, according to some gnostics. The author appears to belong to a group of gnostics who maintain that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the cross. Instead the text says that Simon of Cyrene was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. Jesus is described as standing by and "laughing at their ignorance”// (Wiki).
//The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter is a text found amongst the Nag Hammadi library, and part of the New Testament apocrypha. Like the vast majority of texts in the Nag Hammadi collection, it is heavily gnostic. It was probably written around 100-200 AD. Since the only known copy is written in Coptic, it is also known as the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter.
The text takes gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure. Like some of the rarer Gnostic writings, this one also doubts the established Crucifixion story which places Jesus on the cross. Instead, according to this text, there was a substitute:
He whom you saw on the
tree, glad and laughing,
this is the living Jesus.
But this one into whose
hands and feet they
drive the nails is his
fleshly part, which is the
substitute being put to
shame, the one who
came into being in his
likeness. But look at him
and me// (Wiki).
This is attested in the Quran:
That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ
Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of
Allah’—but they killed him not, nor crucified
him, but so it was made to appear to them,
and those who differ therein are full of
doubts, with no [certain] knowledge, but
only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they
killed him not—nay, Allah raised him up unto
Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power,
Wise (Sura 4:157-158, Yusuf Ali).
——-
A Possible Forgery: Is Muhammad Copying Augustine?
Muhammad (570 – 632 CE) seems to have modelled his conversion on Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 CE), who was without a doubt the greatest theologian and philosopher of his day! Case in point, in 386 CE, Augustine converted to Christianity from the pagan Machanean religion. Similarly, in 610 CE, Muhammad converted to Islam from the “Jahiliyya" religion, which worshipped Allah as the creator god as well as the Kaaba in Mecca. About 224 years earlier St. Augustine had heard a voice that told him to “take up and read,” a line which became very famous and reverberated through the centuries:
As Augustine later told it, his conversion
was prompted by hearing a child's voice
say ‘take up and read’ (Latin: tolle, lege).
Resorting to the Sortes Sanctorum, he
opened a book of St. Paul's writings (codex
apostoli, 8.12.29) at random and read
Romans 13: 13–14: Not in rioting and
drunkenness, not in chambering and
wantonness, not in strife and envying, but
put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no
provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts
thereof (Wiki).
By comparison, Muhammad appears to have used a similar line to claim that he, too, heard an Angel’s voice repeatedly say to him: “Read.” Given that Muhammad was presumably familiar with Judaism and Christianity (and especially with the foremost leading authority of his day, the African Augustine of Hippo), it seems very likely that he modelled his conversion on the latter. And, if true, that would certainly constitute a forgery!
——-
Are Allah’s Oaths Self-contradictory in the Quran?
The aforementioned textual criticisms are further compounded when we realize that the Quran contains further theological discrepancies. For example, there are numerous verses in the Quran where Allah is swearing by created things that are less-than-God, thus committing “shirk” (i.e. the sin of ascribing divine status to any other beings beside Allah). Here’s a case in point. In sura 81:15, Allah says: “But nay! I swear by the stars.” Another example is sura 91 verse 1: “I swear by the sun and its brilliance.” When God supposedly swears by something which is less than himself the truth value of his assertion is obviously weakened. By definition, an oath is meant to buttress an argument, not to decrease the weight thereof. Therefore, the truth value of an oath is equivalent to, and connected with, the truth value of the one who declares it. As such, Allah’s oaths (swearing by created things) directly contradict his so-called divine status. By contrast, the God of the Bible swears by Himself, since there is nothing greater to swear under (cf. Gen. 22.16; Isa. 45.23; Heb. 6.13). By definition, an oath is a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words. In this case, how can Allah’s oaths be trustworthy if they appeal to something that is less than himself? Answer: they cannot! It appears, then, that the aforementioned oaths in the Quran are reflecting a human rather than a divine author.
——-
Is Muhammad the Prophesied False Prophet of Revelation?
During the Early Middle
Ages, Christendom
largely viewed Islam as a
Christological heresy
and Muhammad as a
false prophet (Wiki).
In short, following the Arab conquest of the Middle East and due to the *military expansion* of Islam into Europe and Central Asia since the 700’s (toppling one country after another), Muhammad was increasingly seen as a possible candidate for the office of the *false-prophet-of-Revelation* (cf. Rev. 16.13; 19.20; 20.10): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Christian_views_on_Muhammad
——-
Conclusion
Muslims claim that the Quran is neither corrupted nor influenced by Judeo-Christian sources, and yet upon further scrutiny the book clearly incorporates passages from both the Jewish Talmud and from various Christian apocryphal works. Plagiarism abounds, and so does forgery. Therefore, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that it’s a “revelation” when at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious!
Moreover, Islam has nothing new to offer by way of revelation. Its doctrine could simply be classified as a modified theological redundancy of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Biblical heritage that preceded it. The main difference between Islam and Christianity is this. Unlike the Quran’s singular witness and source——given that it was only revealed to *one* man (Muhammad)——the revelations of the New Testament were imparted to many different people, thereby authenticating its message by multiple attestations and witnesses!
——-
What is Predestination?
By Bible Researcher, Eli Kittim
——-
Introduction
Predestination is the doctrine that all events in the universe have been willed by God (i.e. fatalism). It is a form of theological determinism, which presupposes that all history is pre-ordained or predestined to occur. It is based on the absolute sovereignty of God (aka omnipotence). However, there seems to be a paradox in which God’s will appears to be incompatible with human free-will.
The concept of predestination is found only several times in the Bible. It is, however, a very popular doctrine as it is commonly held by many different churches and denominations. But it’s also the seven-headed dragon of soteriology because of its forbidding controversy, which arises when we ask the question, “on what basis does God make his choice?” Not to mention, how do you tell people God loves them and that Jesus died for you?
If we study both the Old and New Testaments, especially in the original Biblical languages, we will come to realize that predestination doesn’t seem to be based on God’s sovereignty but rather on his “foreknowledge.” This is the *Prescience* view of Predestination, namely, that the decision of salvation and/or condemnation is ultimately based on an individual’s free choice!
——-
Free Will
John MacArthur argues that the salvation “offer is always unlimited, otherwise why would we be told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?” He went on to say, “The offer is always unlimited or man couldn’t be condemned for rejecting it.”
Let’s take a look at the Old Testament. Isaiah 65.12 (ESV) employs the Hebrew term וּמָנִ֨יתִי (ū·mā·nî·ṯî) to mean “I will destine,” which is derived from the word מָנָה (manah) and means to “appoint” or “reckon.” But on what basis does God make his choice of predestination to damnation (aka the doctrine of reprobation)? God says:
I will destine [or predestine] you to the
sword, and all of you shall bow down to the
slaughter, because, when I called, you did
not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen,
but you did what was evil in my eyes and
chose what I did not delight in.
It’s important to note that those who are condemned to damnation are predestined to go there because when God called them, they didn’t respond to his call. When God tried to enlighten them, they “did not listen,“ but instead “did what was evil” in his sight. In fact, they did what God disapproved of! That’s a far cry from claiming, as the Calvinists do, that God willed it all along. Notice that God’s predestination for the reprobates is not based on his will for them not to be saved, but rather because they themselves had sinned. This is an explicit textual reference which indicates that it was something God “did not delight in.” So, it’s not as if God predestined reprobates to hell based on his sovereign will, as Calvinism would have us believe, but rather because they themselves chose to “forsake the LORD” (Isa. 65.11).
The New Testament offers a similar explanation of God’s official verdict pertaining to the doctrine of reprobation, namely, that condemnation depends on human will, not on God’s will. John 3.16 (NIV) reads:
For God so loved the world that he gave his
one and only Son, that whoever believes in
him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Notice, it doesn’t say that only a limited few can believe and be saved by Jesus. Rather, it says “whoever believes in him [ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν] shall not perish but have eternal life.” That is, anyone who believes in Jesus will not be condemned but will be saved, and will therefore be reckoned as one of the elect. Verse 17 says:
For God did not send his Son into the world
to condemn the world, but to save the world
through him.
Once again, there’s a clear distinction between the individual and the world as a whole, as well as a contrast between condemning and saving the world, and we are told that the Son was sent to save the entire world. The next verse (v. 18) explains that condemnation itself ultimately lies not with God but with our own personal choices and decisions. “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (i.e. is predestined to condemnation):
Whoever believes in him is not condemned,
but whoever does not believe stands
condemned already because they have not
believed in the name of God’s one and only
Son.
Verse 19 puts this dilemma in its proper perspective and gives us the judicial verdict, as it were, that we are ultimately responsible for our actions:
This is the verdict: Light has come into the
world, but people loved darkness instead of
light because their deeds were evil.
This conclusion can be easily illustrated. In Rev. 3.20 (KJV), does Christ imply that man’s free will doesn’t really matter at all? Does he say?:
Behold, I stand at the door. Don’t worry, I
won’t bother knocking on the door. Your
your response is unnecessary. You don’t
even have to open the door. I will break it
down and force my way inside.
Is that what he says? No. He says:
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if
any man hear my voice, and open the door,
I will come in to him, and will sup with him,
and he with me.
God respects our free will. Notice the condition that is set before us: someone has to open the door, which is equivalent to granting Christ permission to come in and become a part of them. But the choice ultimately rests with us, not with God. Unless we say yes, nothing happens. We must answer the call (cf. Isa. 65.12) and respond in the affirmative, just as Mary did in the gospel of Luke (1.38 NASB):
‘may it be done to me according to your
word.’
Similarly, Mt. 22.14 clearly shows that those that are not chosen are nevertheless “called”:
‘For many are called, but few are chosen.’
What is more, according to the Biblical text, anyone can become a member of God’s family. Just because God already “foreknows” who will accept and who will reject his invitation doesn’t mean that people are held unaccountable. For Christ doesn’t only take away the sin of the elect, but of the entire world (Jn 1.29 NKJV):
Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away
the sin of the world!
First John 2.2 reads:
And He Himself is the propitiation for our
sins, and not for ours only but also for the
whole world.
In a similar fashion, Rev 22.17 (KJ) says:
Come. And let him that is athirst come. And
whosoever will, let him take the water of life
freely [δωρεάν].
That doesn’t sound to me like a “predestined” election in which only a select few will receive the water of life, but rather a proclamation that salvation is “freely” (δωρεάν) offered to anyone who desires it. Moreover, in 2 Pet. 3.9 (ESV), we are told that “The Lord” doesn’t want to condemn anyone at all:
[he’s] not wishing that any should perish,
but that all should reach repentance.
Is this biblical reference compatible with Calvin’s views? Definitely not! Calvin suggests that God is the author of sin and the only one who ultimately decides on who will repent and who will perish.
Unlimited Atonement
There seems to be a comparison and contrast between the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (in Rom. 9.22), and the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (v. 23). But we cannot jump to any conclusions because the text doesn’t explicitly say that both classes of people are predestined either to election or condemnation by the sovereign will of God. Furthermore, the terms that are used, here, are not the same as the ones used for predestination elsewhere in the Bible. For example, the Greek term often used for “predestination” is προορίζω or proorizó (cf. Acts 4.28; Rom. 1.4; 8.29; Eph. 1.5, 11). However, the Greek word used in Rom. 9.22 is καταρτίζω (katartizó), which means to complete or prepare (not predestine). It could simply refer to the remainder of the population that will miss out on salvation. it doesn’t necessarily follow that these are predestined (κατηρτισμένα) to destruction.
The next verse employs the term προητοίμασεν (prepared) to refer to the elect, or the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.” But caution is advised. The term used is proētoimasen (prepared), not proorizó (predestined). This expression can refer to that portion of the population that God adopted into his family and nourished into maturity. The text is unclear as to whether the term “prepared” suggests that God coerced them into “election” by overriding their free will, while they were kicking and screaming. Besides, their personal choice may have been *foreknown* and acknowledged from the foundation of the world. It still doesn’t prove predestination, as defined by Augustine and Calvin.
If, in fact, God predestined some to salvation and some to perdition, so that Jesus didn’t die for all people but only for a limited few, then it wouldn’t make any sense for the New Testament to say that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all.” Nor would God contradict himself by saying that “he desires everyone to be saved.” First Timothy 2.3-6 (NRSV) reads:
This is right and is acceptable in the sight of
God our Savior, who desires everyone to be
saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth. For there is one God; there is also one
mediator between God and humankind,
Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave
himself a ransom for all [not for some].
Notice that Christ’s atonement potentially covers even sinners who are not yet part of the “elect.” In the following verse, observe what the text says. There were apostates who denied “the Lord who bought them.” This means that Christ’s atonement is not “limited”; it covers them, as well. Second Peter 2.1 (NKJV) reads:
But there were also false prophets among
the people, even as there will be false
teachers among you, who will secretly bring
in destructive heresies, even denying the
Lord who bought them, and bring on
themselves swift destruction.
Prescience (Foreknowledge)
The Greek term that is typically used for predestination is also used in Rom. 1.4 (ESV), namely, the term ὁρισθέντος (from ὁρίζω), which carries the meaning of “determining beforehand,” “appointing,” or “designating.” However, notice that, here, this term is translated as “declared”:
and was declared to be the Son of God in
power according to the Spirit of holiness by
his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ
our Lord.
But was Jesus Christ predestined to be the Son of God? No. He already was the Son of God. Nevertheless, what he would perform in the future was “declared” beforehand, or announced in advance. This verse, then, demonstrates that the word “foreknown” would be a more accurate term than “predestined”!
Similarly, Rom. 8.29 (ESV) tells us that those he “foreknew” (προέγνω), the same God προώρισεν (from προορίζω), that is, foreordained, predetermined, or pre-appointed beforehand. And Rom. 8.30 goes on to say that those he προώρισεν (predetermined) were the same that God also called, justified, and glorified. Verse 29 says:
For those whom he foreknew he also
predestined to be conformed to the image
of his Son.
Notice that God’s *foreknowledge* temporally precedes predestination. If God actually chose to save some and not to save others before the foundation of the world, then his foreknowledge would be irrelevant. But since it is on this basis that God predestines, it doesn’t sound as if predestination is chosen on the basis of God’s sovereign will.
Conclusion
Acts 4.28 does say that God’s will προώρισεν (predetermined beforehand) what will happen. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything that has occurred in human history is based on the will of God (i.e. fatalism). And we don’t know to what extent God influences reality. So, we cannot jump to any conclusions that God is behind everything that happens. Why? Because with absolute responsibility comes absolute blame. Is God responsible for murder, or rape, or genocide? I think not! So, we are on safer ground if we acknowledge that God “foreknew” what would happen and declared it beforehand (cf. Isa. 46.10). This notion would be far more consistent with the Bible than placing the full blame for everything that has ever occurred in the world on God. This seems to be the Achilles' heel of Calvinism.
Ephesians 1.5 is another controversial verse. The Greek term used is προορίσας (from προορίζω), meaning “foreordain,” “predetermine,” or “pre-approve beforehand.” The verse reads:
he predestined us for adoption to himself as
sons through Jesus Christ, according to the
purpose of his will.
But what exactly does the term “will” mean, here? Does it refer to God’s choice to save only a limited few and no one else, or to his overall plan of salvation that includes all people? It seems as if God saved those who answered his invitation, as it were, which would explain why he has “foreknown” them and predestined them for glory. I think that the latter explanation seems far more compatible with the Bible by a preponderance of the evidence.
Finally, let’s look at Ephesians 1.11. The Greek term that is used is προορισθέντες (from proorizó), meaning to “predetermine” or “foreordain beforehand.” The verse says that we have been predestined according to his purpose. Granted, it does say that all things work according to God’s will. However, to be fair, we don’t know exactly how that works, and so we can’t offer premature assumptions and presuppositions, especially when they contradict other passages in the Bible.
It would be utterly foolish to suppose that the God of the universe does not affect, influence, or sustain his creation. The fact that he created the universe obviously implies that he had a purpose for it. So, I’m not discounting the notion that all things are, in a certain sense, guided by his ultimate purpose. However, I take issue with those thinkers who take it to the extreme and portray the deity as an authoritarian and capricious God who bypasses the principles of truth and wisdom and intervenes by forcibly coercing man's free will. That type of God is inconsistent with the infinitely wise, holy, true, and good God of the Bible. That is precisely why “Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil” (Wiki)!
——-