Commentary Response to Ahmed Deedat's Video 'Muhammed in ...

2011 Commentary Response to Ahmed Deedat’s Video ‘Muhammed in the Bible’

A commentary/exegesis from complied sources to answer Ahmed Deedat

Compiled by Josh McGillis

With respect to Ahmed Deedat there are many issues with his presentation that I have outlined below. The only way I could think to address the issues is by a breakdown of the video parts with time signatures from when he was talking about the point in question.

Video Part 1 Time 8:01 – Ahmed Deedat claims Muhammad’s name is in the Bible in Song of Solomon 5:16

-2

The Hebrew word in question is ma·cha·mad·dim or

mchmdim

1. The logic of the assertion that the word Machmad is Muhammad because the two words sound a bit similar is somewhat specious. The name John sounds a bit like the Arabic Jinn, but there is no connection between the two. Similarly a connection on the grounds that the word means "the praised one" falls short of a guaranteed logical link; has only one person in the world ever been praised? 1 2. The context of the passage identifies the person described as Machmad as someone in the time of Solomon (Song 3:11) who is loved by a Shulamite (Song 6:13). He is red-haired (Song 5:10). None of these descriptions fits Muhammad who never visited Shunem in his life. 1 3. A search of all the occurrences of the word Machmad in the Bible shows that the word has nothing to do with praise. It simply refers to whatever is desirable for whatever reason and is derived from the root chamad which means desire. 1 4. If one is to accept that the word Machmad refers to Muhammad then one should look at all the occurrences of that word. When one does this one can see why only the occurrence in the Song of Solomon is cited by Ahmed Deedat. The others tell one that Machmad was destroyed (2 Chron. 36:19), was to be laid waste (Isa. 64:10-11), has been taken captive by an enemy (Lam. 1:10), has been traded for food (Lam. 1:11), has been slain by God (Lam. 2:4; Hos. 9:16), has been removed by God (Ezek. 24:16), is to be profaned by God (Ezek. 24:21), is to be buried in nettles (Hos. 9:6) and been carried away by pagans into their temples (Joel 3:5). Even an unkind person would not attribute all these things to Muhammad.1

2

Video Part 1 | Response: Muhammad in the Bible

Video Part 2: Time 2:34 – Ahmed Deedat asks “ Mesiah Translated as Christ? How does that come about?” Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one". It is a translation of the Hebrew ַ‫( מָ ׁשִ יח‬Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as Messiah. At the time of Jesus, there was no single, coherent form or order within Judaism, and significant political, social and religious differences existed among the Jews. However, for centuries the Jews had used the term "the Anointed" to refer to their expected deliverer. A large number of Old Testament passages were regarded as messianic by the Jews, many more than are commonly considered messianic by Christians, and various groups of Jews assigned varying degrees of significance to them. The Greek word Messias appears only twice in the Old Testament of the promised prince (Daniel 9:26; Psalm 2:2); yet, when a name was wanted for the promised one, who was to be at once King and Savior, this title was used. The New Testament states that the Messiah, long awaited, had come and describes this savior as The Christ. In Matt 16:16 Apostle Peter, in what has become a famous proclamation of faith among Christians since the first century, said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." The opening words in the Gospel of Mark 1:1, namely "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" also identify Jesus as both Christ and the Son of God. The divinity being again re-affirmed in Mark 1:11. Thereafter Mark never applies Christ to Jesus as a name. Matthew 1:1 uses Christ as a name and Matthew 1:16 explains it again with: "Jesus, who is called Christ". In the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God far more frequently than in the Synoptic Gospels. The use of the definite article before the word Christ and its gradual development into a proper name show the Christians identified the bearer with the promised Messiah of the Jews who fulfilled all the Messianic predictions in a fuller and a higher sense than had been given them by the Rabbis. In the New Testament e.g. Matthew 1:1, 1:18; Mark 1:1; John 1:17; 17:3; 9:22; Mark 9:40; Luke 2:11; 22:2, the word Christ is preceded by Jesus.3

Time 4:50 - Ahmed Deedat make the point Jesus’ name is not Jesus but Yeshua Yeshua, spelled ַ‫( י ֵׁשּוע‬Yēšūă‘) or ‫ ישוע‬in Hebrew, was a common name among Jews of the Second Temple Period, and is thought by scholars and religious groups to be the Hebrew or Aramaic name for Jesus. In modern Hebrew, Yeshu (‫ )ישו‬and Yeshua (‫ )ישוע‬are the common transcriptions for Jesus —the two different names have different emphasis. Yeshu is used in most contexts in modern Hebrew to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. The name Yeshua is extensively used by Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians and Rastafarians, as well as other Christian denominations who wish to use Jesus' Hebrew name. Among the Jews of the Second Temple Period, the Biblical Aramaic/Hebrew name ַ‫ י ֵׁשּוע‬Yeshua‘ was common: the Hebrew Bible mentions several individuals with this name. This name is a feature of 3

Video Part 2: | Response: Muhammad in the Bible

biblical books written in the post-Exilic period (Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles) and was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Strong's Concordance connects the name ַ‫ יֵֹוׁשֻ ׁשּוע‬Yeshua`, in the English form Jeshua (as used in multiple instances in Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles), with the verb "to deliver" (or, "to rescue"). It is often translated as "He saves," to conform with Matthew 1:21: "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (NASB).

The Greek transliteration Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) *jesu-os → [jeˈsuːs] can stand for both Classical Biblical Hebrew Yehoshua [jəhoˈʃuaʕ] (top two) and Late Biblical Hebrew Yeshua [jeˈʃuaʕ] (bottom). This later form developed within Hebrew (not Aramaic).All three spelling variants occur in the Hebrew Bible, including when referring to the same person. During the Second Temple Period, Jews of Galilee tended to preserve the traditional spelling, keeping the ו‬letter for the [o] in the first syllable, even adding an additional letter for the [u] in the second syllable. However, Jews of Jerusalem tended to spell the name as they pronounced it, [jeˈʃuaʕ], contracting the spelling to ‫ ישוע‬without the [o] letter. Later, Aramaic references to the Hebrew Bible adopted the contracted phonetic form of this Hebrew name as an Aramaic name.4

Time 6:20 - Ahmed Deedat makes the case that Matthew 7:22 is referring to Jesus telling Christians he never knew them based on the misuse of his name as expressed earlier. He also asserts that this passage is directed at Christians and not at Hindus, Jews, or Muslims (@ 7:15). Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:22-23) Fortunately, the Bible is extremely clear on what is meant by this passage. Jesus is speaking directly to ALL unbelievers who do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Let’s break down this verse:

4


Many (polus) speaks of a large multitude. Here Jesus presents us with a stark contrast to the "few...who find" eternal life by entering the small gate and the narrow way (Mt 7:14). “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Will say (lego) means to speak or talk, with an apparent focus upon content of what is said. Notice that Jesus does give them a chance to speak even though He already knows their heart. That day - This is the specific future day known as the day of judgment specifically the judgment of unbelievers which Scripture teaches will occur at the Great White Throne (see Re 20:11, 12, 13, 14, 15 see notes) after the Millennial reign of Christ. That day will be a tragic and fateful day of separation forever from the presence of God ( 2Th 1:9) for those who internal evil character is revealed by their outward evil conduct. Jesus claimed to be the eschatological Judge. This was one of Messiah’s functions. That day is the day Jesus will judge false professors. It is almost a technical term for the messianic age (cf. Isa. 2:11, 17; 4:2; 10:20; Jer. 49:22; Zech. 14:6, 20, 21). Lord, Lord (kurios related to the adjective kuros - might, strong, supremacy, authoritative) describes one having absolute legal power and thus the one who is master or possessor. It is the one who has absolute ownership. The kurios has control over his possessions. Jesus is referred to some ten times as Savior and some 700 times as Lord. Supreme in Authority. Kurios translates Jehovah (LORD in OT) in Septuagint (LXX) 7000 times. When the two titles are mentioned together, Lord always precedes Savior. Is He your kurios, your Lord, your Master, your Owner, your Possessor? In summary, kurios signifies sovereign power and absolute authority. The primary idea is Jesus is the One in possession of all power and authority over those who are truly His possession. Paul in his description of genuine believers asks the saints at Corinth... Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit Who is in you, Whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1Co 6:19,20) Paul's point is that every genuine believer has been purchased (and redeemed) by the precious blood of the Lamb and now is rightfully the sole possession of the Lamb of God, Who is Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who were never born again called Him Lord but still lived like they belonged to themselves. In other words, they were the "lord" of their life, as shown by their conduct and lifestyle. Their actions of their life belied the affirmation of their lips. 5


He gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (Titus 2:14)

Did we not - This phrase in the Greek expects "an affirmative answer and thus pictures both the selfconceit and the self-deception of the persons Jesus describes. “Surely we have prophesied, etc." Prophesy (propheteuo from pró = before or forth + phemí = tell) means literally to tell forth and can mean to speak forth God's message, not necessarily referring to speaking of future events. In other contexts to prophesy means to speak under inspiration and foretell future events. In this context the meaning could be either sense. Moses had long before warned about those who prophesy falsely... If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you. (Dt 13:1-5) Jesus warned that in the time of the Great Tribulation. false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. (Mt 24:24) In Your name - This phrase is repeated three times. All that these individuals did, they did ostensibly in the Name of Jesus, acting as if they were His legitimate representatives! They spoke the correct "religious dialect". They carried out the correct religious activities and ostensibly did so for the "right reasons". And yet they were veritable evangelical impostors and church charlatans, for their hearts had never been changed by grace through faith. Someone's "name" in Scripture stood for their character, the very essence of who they were. These fakers claimed to be Jesus' representatives who had His authority and thus the association of Jesus' name would have lent some degree of credibility to the prophecy, the casting out of demons or the 6


miracles. As an aside, Jesus did not correct their assertion that they had performed these deeds. Irregardless whether they actually did perform these deeds did not determine their fate. It was their heart of evil which continually practiced evil deeds which identified them as unregenerate and determined their eternal destiny in the lake of fire. Cast out demons - This action was practiced during the ministry of Jesus (cp Mt 4:24; 8:16, 31; 9:33, 34; 12:24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29; 17:18) and of the twelve disciples (see below) as well as in the early Church (e.g., Acts 5:16; 16:18; 19:12). Jesus gave authority to His disciples to cast out demons... And having summoned His twelve disciples, He gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax-gatherer; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him. 5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying...8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons; freely you received, freely give. (Mt 10:1-5, 8) Performed many miracles - Note their miraculous works were not few but many and again Jesus does not dispute their claim to fame! How many people in our day are ready to fall for miracles and follow miracle workers. Miracles (dunamis from dunamai = to be able, to have power) power especially achieving power. It refers to intrinsic power or inherent ability, the power or ability to carry out some function, the potential for functioning in some way (power, might, strength, ability, capability), the power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature. Dunamis can be used of any kind of extraordinary power, in this case of miraculous powers. The false claimants have prophesied in Jesus' Name and by that Name exorcised demons and performed miracles. There is no reason to judge their claims false; their claims are not false but insufficient. Significantly the miracles Jesus specifies were all done by His disciples during His ministry (cf. Mt 10:1, 2, 3, 4) Then (tote) means at that time. Then is an adverb of time and often serves as a marker of subsequent time. In other words, then is often used to introduce what follows in sequence. Remember that whenever you encounter a then in Scripture, pause for a moment (slow down) and ask the simple question, "What time is it?" or "When is then?" or "What is the sequence of events being explained?" or "What follows then?". Declare (homologeo from homoú = together with + légo = say) means literally to say the same or agree in one's statement with another. Homologeo is to publicly acknowledge a fact often reference to bad 7


behavior. In the present context homologeo means to make an emphatic declaration. Homologeo is used elsewhere of open confession of Christ before men (Mt 10:32; Ro 10:9); of John’s public declaration that he was not the Christ (Jn 1:20); of Herod’s promise to Salome in the presence of his guests (Mt 14:7). There are 26 uses of homologeo in the NT - Mt 7:23; 10:32; 14:7; Lk 12:8; Jn 1:20; 9:22; 12:42; Ac 7:17; 23:8; 24:14; Ro 10:9, 10; 1Ti 6:12; Titus 1:16; He 11:13; 13:15; 1Jn 1:9; 2:23; 4:2, 3, 15; 2Jn. 1:7; Re 3:5 Never (oudepote from oude = not even + pote = at any time) means not even at a time or never at all did I know you! The point is they were not "once saved" persons who then fell into sin and thereby "lost" their salvation. They simply were never at any time saved. Knew (ginosko) describes knowledge that one gains through direct personal involvement or experience. Here clearly Jesus uses ginosko not so much to describe His understanding but His relationship (actually lack of) with these evildoers. It is therefore not surprising that ginosko is sometimes used in the NT to describe intimate relationship, even speaking occasionally of marital intimacy between a man and woman (Bride and Bridegroom, Re 19:7, 8, 9 -see notes Re19:7; 8; 9). In other words a husband knowing his wife was a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse (Mt 1:25). Jesus is fully God, fully omniscient and thus He obviously knew their identity (their heart). What Jesus is saying in essence is "I was never at any time acquainted with you (never had an experiential knowledge of or with you implying that you never experienced Me, never had fellowship or communion with Me.)"! Luke records a similar charge by Jesus for evildoers to depart... And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, 24 "Strive (present imperative) to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 "Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.' 26 "Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets'; 27 and He will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART (aorist imperative) FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.' 28 "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being cast out. 29 "And they will come from east and west, and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God. 30 "And behold, some are last who will be first and some are first who will be last." (Lk 13:23-30)

8


Comment: Take careful note of the fact that the tenses of the action verbs loves and practices is , which clearly indicates that these actions characterize the lifestyle of these individuals. We have all told a lie (even if just a little "white lie"!), but John is not talking about these occasional "blips" on the radar screen (that identifies intruders called "sins"), but about one's continual, unrepentant practice of loving lying! Compare this description with Jesus' words practice (present tense) lawlessness. DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS - Note that these words are in all caps in the NAS, which is used in that translation to identify a specific quotation from the Old Testament. As an aside it is notable that the majority of the OT quotes are not taken from the Masoretic Hebrew text but from the Greek translation known as the Septuagint (LXX). So from what OT passage is Jesus quoting? The answer is Psalm 6:8 which reads Depart from me, all you who do iniquity, For the LORD has heard the voice of my weeping. (Psalm 6:8) Depart (apochoreo from apó = from, a marker of dissociation + choréo = to go from a place, give space) means to move away from a point, with emphasis upon separation and possible lack of concern for what has been left. To depart in the sense of desert or abandon (as in Acts 13:13). Jesus uses the present imperative which indicates the commanded separation is forever. Practice (ergazomai from érgon = work) means to work out, engage in an activity involving considerable expenditure of effort. It was used to describe one toiling energetically and diligently in the vineyard. Jesus is not saying that they occasionally (present tense = habitual activity, their lifestyle) fall into sins (which can be the experience of genuine believers) but that they continually work exerting great effort and diligence in order to violate the law! Sadly their end justifies their means! Practice lawlessness - They reject God's law (and thus ultimately reject His Word and thus God Himself!) in favor of their own self centered, flesh driven desires and will for their life. They act as if there were no divine Torah (Law). Character is satisfactorily tested by the "fruit" of obedience (cp 1Sa 15:22,23) Paul explains it this way... the mind set on the flesh is death...because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so. (Ro 8:6, 7-notes) In other words they won't obey God because they can't obey God. Their "uncircumcised", unconverted, unregenerate, unrepentant, hard hearts do not give them the power or ability to even be able to obey God. Lawlessness (anomia from a = without + nomos = law) is a noun which describes in a literal sense that which is contrary to the law. As often used in the NT, anomia can be described as living as though one's own ideas are superior to God's. Lawlessness says, "God may demand it but I don't prefer it." 9


Lawlessness says, "God may promise it but I don't want it." Lawlessness replaces God's law with my contrary desires. I become a law to myself. Lawlessness is rebellion against the right of God to make laws and govern His creatures. A profession of Christ and a continual practice of lawlessness as one's lifestyle are simply not compatible. As Jesus stated earlier a good tree (a regenerate heart, a new creature in Christ) cannot continually bear that sort of fruit (as one's virtual lifestyle)! Note that Jesus is not teaching sinless perfection, for He knows that in this body of physical flesh, genuine believers will sin because of the moral/ethical flesh, that evil disposition inherited from Adam and integrally part of our mortal bodies until we are glorified. So occasional sins or even falling to pattern of sin for a period of time is not what Jesus means by practice lawlessness. He is speaking here of the practice of sins as their "natural" state. They live to commit sin. They have never had a genuine change of heart in regard to sin. They still enjoy their sin. When a true believer sins, they are smitten and grieved over their sin and eventually will (or should) confess their sin and seek to turn from the sin that grieved their Father's heart. Genuine believers press onward and upward, albeit imperfectly, in the general direction of Christ-likeness enabled by a Spirit energized desire for godliness, righteousness and holy things, such as His Word, prayer, fellowship with other believers, etc. Absence of these characteristics should cause one to examine themselves (see 2Co 13:5). (above 5)

Time 8:49 – Ahmed Deedat continues with his point about Christians applying incorrect names and states Simon/Peter never heard the name Peter in this life. Ahmed Deedat also makes the point that he has called rock due his stubbornness and being militant This statement is clearly in Contradiction to what the Bible teaches and completely misses the point of why Jesus refers to Simon as “rock”. In a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples (Matthew 16:13-20), Jesus asks, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” The disciples give various answers. When he asks, "Who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answers, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." In turn, Jesus declares Peter to be "blessed" for having recognized Jesus' true identity and attributes this recognition to a divine revelation. Then Jesus addresses Simon by what seems to have been the nickname "Peter" (Cephas in Aramaic, Petros [rock] in Greek) and says, "On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." When God changed a person’s name and gave them a new name, it was usually to establish a new identity. God changed Abram’s "high father" name to Abraham "father of multitude" (Genesis 17:5) and his wife’s name from Sarai “my princess,” to Sarah “mother of nations” (Genesis 17:15).

10


Petros had not previously been used as a name, but in the Greek-speaking world it became a popular Christian name, after the tradition of Peter's prominence in the early Christian church had been established. 6 Whether Simon/Peter heard Cephas, Petros, Rock, or Peter is really irrelevant.

Time 11:35 Ahmed Deedat continues with the name argument stating that Christians are translating names which is a problem. He asserts that Saul is translated Paul because Saul sounds Jewish and Paul sounds Greek or Roman. Paul the Apostle, also called the Apostle Paul, Paul of Tarsus, and Saint Paul, (Ancient Greek: Σαούλ (Saul), Σαῦλος (Saulos), and Παῦλος (Paulos); Latin: Paulus or Paullus; Hebrew: ‫ התרסי שאול‬Šaʾul HaTarsi (Saul of Tarsus)[3] (c. 5 - c. 67 ),was of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a zealous Jew, who persecuted the early followers of Jesus Christ. However after his "Resurrection experience", he began calling himself a Christian and referred to himself as the "Apostle to the Gentiles". Paul shares his original Hebrew name Saul (Hebrew: ‫ׁשָ אּול‬, Modern Sha'ul Tiberian Šāʼûl ; "asked for, prayed for"), with the Biblical King Saul, a fellow Benjaminite and the first king of Israel, who was replaced by King David, of the tribe of Judah. Usage of "Paul" is first recorded in Acts when he begins his first missionary journey into a new territory. In Acts 13:6-13, we are told of Paul speaking to Sergius Paulus, a Roman official. Paulus was a Roman surname, and apparently Paul adopted it as his first name. Paul make no secret of the fact that he is a Jew, using it throughout the new testament as a part of with testimony (Galatians 2:11-14, Acts 21:39, etc.), so arguing that this was to make him sound more universal is a fairly week argument.7

Video Part 3 Time 0:05 – 0:25 - Ahmed Deedat concludes his point by saying the words Jesus, and Christ are de- nationalized versions of Yeshua and Mesiah respectively and we have lost the name. As we have seen through the above sections, this is not the case and the words are used correctly and legitimately by Christian followers as they have been for the last 2 millennium and beyond. There is no reason to “de-nationalize” these words. They are simply the natural progression of other languages representing the same things(Read on Etymology). In fact all of these words (Yeshua, messiah, etc) are

11


still used in modern Christian circles. This is no different that would be the case for any present day translation of an ancient text. If this is not the case then why does Ahmed Deedat so many times refer to the Arabic pronunciation of the Jewish name(Abraham, known as Ibrahim in Arabic) ? If you must always saw the name exactly as the person heard it 2-4 thousand years ago why do Muslims not practice this? The name Muḥammad is the strictest and primary transliteration of the Arabic given name (Arabic: ‫) ُمحَ مَّد‬ that comes from the Arabic passive participle and triconsonantal root of Ḥ-M-D; Praise. Other Arabic names from the same root include Mahmud, Ahmed, and Hamid; which is one of the 99 Names of Allah, meaning The Blesser. The name is also transliterated as Mohammad (primarily in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan), Muhammad (in India and Bangladesh), Muhammed (Arab World, primarily in North Africa), Mohamed and Mohamad (Arab World), Muhammad (Arab World), Muhammed, Muhamed (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Muhammed, Muhamed, Muhammet, or Muhamet (Turkey and Albania). In Latin, it is Mahometus (hence Italian Maometto) and Μωάμεθ (Moameth) in Greek. In Catalan and in Spanish it is Mahoma, and in Galician it is Mamede. In Russia it is Мухаммад (Mukhammad), another common spelling is Магомед (Magomed). In Somali it is Maxamed. While in Senegal and in other West African nations, the variant is Mamadou. In Kazakh, the name is Махамбет (Makhambet). In Chinese, it is written as 穆罕默德 (Mùhǎnmòdé). If Yeshua is the correct name for Jesus, as Ahmed Deedat says, and saying Jesus is wrong, why is he referred to as Isa(Arabic: ‫` ;عيسى‬Īsā) in the Qur’an? Should Muslims not say Yeshua too? Numerous titles are given to Jesus in the Qur'an, such as al-Masīḥ8 Ahmed Deedat says Ahmed and Muhammad are synonymous terms and yet Jesus and Yeshua are not? Christians do not, and have no reason, to deny that Jesus was a Jew. If fact in order to fulfill the messianic prophecies this would have to be the case. Jer. 23:5, "The days are coming, declares the LORD, 'when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.'" Luke 3:23-31, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli... the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David." This entire line of reasoning is extremely week, and ignores the texts of the Bible. It completely misses the point of the Gospels and I find that it holds no weight on the Christian faith.

12


Time 0:26 - Ahmed Deedat Quotes the Qur’an ‘“… and to give you glad tidings of a messenger to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.” - Qur’an 61:6.” Seeing as how this talk is on Muhammad in the Bible saying that Jesus said Muhammad would come in the Qur’an is a circular argument. Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example: "Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."

Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.9

Time 1:45- Ahmed Deedat makes the case the when Jesus says he has to go so that the comforter can come, this is in reference to Muhammad. @3:43 he also asserts that the original name was lost but does not go into detail. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you John 16.7 "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you". John 14.16-17. "But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you". John 14.26 "But when the Comforter comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me". John 15.26 It is generally alleged by Muslims that the Greek word "paracletos" (meaning Comforter, Counsellor, Advocate, etc., in effect, one who unites men to God) is not the original word but that Jesus in fact foretold the coming of Muhammad by name and that the translation of his name into Greek (or at least the meaning of his name in Greek) is "periklutos", that is, the "praised one". 13


There is not a shred of evidence in favour of the assertion that the original word was "periklutos". We have thousands of New Testament manuscripts pre-dating Islam and not one of these contains the word "periklutos" It is quite obvious from the four texts quoted that Comforter, Holy Spirit, and Spirit of Truth are interchangeable terms and that Jesus is speaking of the same person in each instance. The one obvious fact that emerges is that the Comforter is a spirit. If we apply sound exegesis to John 14.16-17 we shall discover no less than eight reasons why the Comforter cannot possibly be Muhammad. 1. "He will give YOU another Comforter". Jesus promised his disciples that God would send the Comforter to them. He would send the Spirit of Truth to Peter, and to John, and to the rest of the disciples - not to Meccans. Medinans or Arabians. 2. "He will give you ANOTHER Comforter". If, as Muslims allege, the original word was periklutos and that Christians changed it into paracletos, then the sentence would have read, "He will give you another praised one". This statement is both out of place in its context and devoid of support elsewhere in the Bible. Jesus is never called the "periklutos" in the Bible (the word appears nowhere in the Bible) so it is grossly unlikely that he would have said "He will give you another praised one" when he never used that title for himself. Worse still, as the Muslims allege that he actually foretold the coming of Muhammad by mentioning his name, the sentence in that case would have read "He will give you another Muhammad". The further the Muslims try to press the point, the more absurd it tends to become. John 16.12-13 makes it clear that the word "paracletos" is obviously the correct one. The text reads: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth". In other words, I have been your Comforter, your paracletos, and have many things to tell you, but I send the Spirit of Truth to you, another Comforter, another paracletos. In 1 John 2.1 we read that Christians have an "advocate" with the Father, "Jesus Christ the Righteous", and the word translated "advocate" is paracletos in the Greek. So Jesus is our paracletos, our Comforter and advocate with the Father, and he promised to give his disciples another Comforter. It is therefore logical to find that Jesus promised another paracletos when he himself was described as the paracletos of his followers, but it is illogical to suggest that he would speak of "another periklutos" when the word was never used to describe him in the first place. 3. "To be with you FOREVER". When Muhammad came he did not stay with his people forever but died in 632 AD and his tomb is in Medina where his body has lain for over 1300 years. Nevertheless Jesus said that the Comforter, once he had come, would never leave his disciples, but would be with them forever.

14


4. "The Spirit of Truth whom the world CANNOT receive". The Qur'an says that Muhammad came as a universal messenger to men (Surah 34.28). If so, Jesus was not referring to Muhammad for he said that the world cannot receive the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. 5. "You KNOW him". It is quite obvious from this statement that the disciples knew the Spirit of Truth. As Muhammad was only born more than five hundred years later, it certainly could not be him. The next clause brings out just how the disciples knew him. At this stage we can see quite clearly that the Comforter is a spirit who was in the disciples' presence already. 6. "He dwells WITH you". Where did the Comforter dwell with them? From various verses, especially John 1.32, we can see that the Spirit was in Jesus himself and so was with the disciples. 7. "He will be IN you". Here the death-blow is dealt to the theory that Muhammad is the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. As the Spirit was in Jesus, so he would be in the disciples as well. The Greek word here is "en" and this means "right inside". So Jesus was in fact saying "he will be right inside you". 8. The last reason is really a re-emphasis of the first one. Do you notice how often Jesus addresses his own disciples when he speaks of the sphere of influence of the Comforter? "You know him ... he dwells with you ... he will be in you". Quite clearly the disciples were to anticipate the coming of the Comforter as a spirit who would come to them just after Jesus had left them. No other interpretation can possibly be drawn from this text. Let us read how the Spirit came to Jesus: "The Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove" (Luke 3.22). We read that the Spirit, the Comforter, came to the disciples in a similar way just after the ascension of Jesus (as Jesus told them he would): "And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2.3-4). He was with the disciples in the person of Jesus while he was still with them, and he was in the disciples from the day of Pentecost. We thus see the prediction Jesus made in John 14.17 duly fulfilled in the coming of the Holy Spirit. Within only ten days after the ascension of Jesus, the disciples duly received the Comforter as he was promised to them by Jesus. He had told them to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, should come (Acts 1.4-8) as indeed he did while they were all together praying for his advent in the city. Muhammad is right out of this picture. Moving on now to John 16.7 (quoted earlier), the whole meaning of this verse also becomes clear from the statement of Jesus, "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16.12). Jesus also said: "It is to your advantage that I go away" (John 16.7). The disciples could not bear his teaching now because they were ordinary men devoid of power to comprehend or apply what he said. The Spirit of Truth was indeed in Jesus, but was not yet in his disciples, so they were unable to follow the 15


spiritual elements in his teaching. But after the ascension they received the Spirit and could now communicate and understand his teaching because the Spirit of Truth was in them as well. That is why Jesus said "it is to your advantage that I go away". This is made equally clear elsewhere in the Bible: What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him, God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 1 Corinthians 2.9-13. Paul makes it plain that the Spirit had already been given and if it had not, it could not have been to any advantage to the disciples to be without Jesus once he had ascended to heaven. So it is abundantly proved that Muhammad is not the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, whose coming Jesus foretold. Who is the Comforter then? He is the very Spirit of the living God as can be seen from some of the quotations already given. On the day when the Comforter duly came upon the disciples, his coming was accompanied by a tremendous sound, "like the rush of a mighty wind" (Acts 2.2). When the Jews heard this, they rushed together to see what was happening. Peter declared to them all: "This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh' ". Acts 2.16-17. The Comforter, the Spirit of God, had come down on the disciples as Jesus had promised and was to be given to believing Christian men and women from every nation under the sun. But notice how Peter linked the coming of the Spirit with the ascension of Christ: "This Jesus God raised up and of that we are all witnesses. Being therefore exacted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear". Acts 2.32-33. Clearly the coming of the Comforter was inseparably linked to the risen, ascended glory of Jesus in the highest place that heaven affords. The Comforter is also called "the Spirit of Christ" (Romans 8. 9) and the reason is plain from what Jesus said: 1. "He will glorify me" (John 16.14). 2. "He will bear witness to me" (John 15.26). 3. "He will convince the world concerning sin because they do not believe in me" (John 16. 8-9).

16


4. "He will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16.14). 5. "He will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14.26). Quite obviously the great work of the Comforter is to bring people to Jesus, to make them see him as Saviour and Lord, and to draw them to him. The Comforter was given so that the glory of Jesus might be revealed to men and in men. A beautiful example of this is given by the Apostle John: His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and done to him. John 12.16 Without the Spirit, they had no understanding, but when they received the Spirit after Jesus was glorified, then they remembered as Jesus said they would. John illustrates this in this passage as well: On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, 'If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water'. Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7.37-39. As soon as Jesus was glorified the Spirit was given so that the glory of Jesus in heaven might become real to men here on earth. As Peter said (Acts 2.33), once Jesus was exalted at the right hand of God, the Spirit was freely given to his disciples. Again Peter said, "The God of our fathers glorified Jesus" (Acts 3.13). We cannot see or comprehend this glory of Jesus here on earth (and Jesus himself said, "I do not receive glory from men" John 5.41), but he sent the Spirit so that we might behold this glory by the eye of faith. As Jesus himself said to his disciples of the Spirit: "He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine, therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you". John 16.14-15. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and he is given to all true believers so that the glory of Jesus in heaven may become real to men on earth. John makes it plain how a man receives the Holy Spirit: Now this he spoke about the Spirit, which those who BELIEVED in him were to receive. John 7.39

17


To receive the Comforter, the Spirit of God, one must believe in Jesus and surrender body and soul to him. Without the Spirit no one sees or believes in the glory of Christ, but for those who are his true followers and who are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1.2), Peter says: Without having seen him, you love him, though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls. 1 Peter 1.8-9. The distinction between those who have received the Spirit and those who have not, those who have beheld the glory of Christ and those who have not, comes out very clearly as Peter continues to speak to his fellow-believers: To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'. 1 Peter 2.7 The Bible says much about the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, but the great and most handsome work of the Spirit is summed up in Jesus' words: "HE WILL GLORIFY ME". John 16.14 Although the Spirit had been at work in the world before the advent of Jesus Christ, and had indeed filled many of the great prophets and men of old with a longing for the coming Christ, he only finally united himself to men, and men to God, and indeed true believers to one another after the resurrection and ascension of Christ to heaven. Jesus Christ spoke to his OWN disciples of the coming of the Comforter because the Spirit was sent down to comfort and regenerate all true believers in Jesus. This is one of the most significant and consistent elements of the teaching of Jesus about the Comforter. The prime purpose of the coming of the Comforter - immediately after the ascension of Jesus - was to draw men to him so that those who are influenced by the work of the Comforter will therefore become followers of Jesus. It is further evidence against the theory that Muhammad was the Comforter for, whereas the Comforter would not speak of himself but only of Jesus, Muhammad drew attention away from Jesus to himself, describing himself as the ultimate apostle of God to be followed and obeyed. The Comforter was never to do a thing like this. Jesus made it plain that the Comforter would draw the attention and faith of all men to himself and would glorify him before the eyes of faith of true believers as the Lord of glory in heaven. After Jesus Christ had ascended to heaven to be glorified at the right hand of God above all the angels and departed saints, the Comforter came immediately upon his disciples to make this glory real to them and through them to spread it all over the world. For Jesus Christ is the very image of the Father's glory. In him are all things united, whether in heaven or on earth. He is the climax of God's plan for the fullness of time. He is the beginning and the end of all God's gracious work in all ages - for all the salvation and glory that God has prepared for those who love him are vested in Jesus. 18


The Comforter came to give us a foretaste of this glory. He came to make the resplendent glory of Jesus real to those who follow him. As Moses encouraged his people to look forward to the prophet who would be like him, who would mediate a new covenant to save all who truly believe, so the Comforter encourages Christ's followers in this age to look up to the risen, ascended, Lord Jesus Christ who sits on the throne of God in eternal glory above the heavens. (Above 10)

Time 4:00 - The “comforter” is not the Holy Ghost . Ahmed Deedat Argues that Holy Ghost does not fit Muhammad but Holy Spirit can. He argues there is no such word as ghost in Greek We have already seen that the Holy Spirit is not Muhammad but let’s address the issue of the Holy Ghost as well. It is only the King James Version of the Bible which uses the term “Holy Ghost.” It occurs 90 times in the KJV. The term “Holy Spirit” occurs 7 times in the KJV. There is no clear reason as to why the KJV translators used Ghost in most places and then Spirit in a few. The exact same Greek and Hebrew words are translated "ghost" and "spirit" in the KJV in different occurrences of the words. By "ghost," the KJV translators did not intend to communicate the idea of "the spirit of a deceased person." In 1611, when the KJV was originally translated, the word "ghost" primarily referred to "an immaterial being." With recent Scripture translations, "Spirit" has replaced "Ghost" in most instances. Some of this came about because words don't always hold their meanings. In the days of Shakespeare or King James, ghost meant the living essence of a person. Looking back, we see that "breath" or "soul" were often used as synonyms of "ghost." During these times, spirit normally meant the essence of a departed person or a demonic or paranormal apparition. As language evolved, people started saying "ghost" when speaking of the vision of a dead person while "spirit" became the standard term for life or living essence, often also for "soul." With slight exceptions, "ghost" and "spirit" changed places over some 300 years. The real issue is that both "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" refer to the Third Person of the Trinity, coequal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19; Acts 5:3,4; 28:25,26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6). He is the gift of the Father to His people on earth to initiate and complete the building of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). He is also the agency by which the world is convicted of sin, the Lord Jesus is glorified, and believers are transformed into His image (John 16:7-9; Acts 1:5, 2:4; Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Ephesians 2:22). Whichever term we use, we remember that this Holy Ghost is God's active breath, blowing where He wishes, creating faith through water and Word. 11

Time 5:11 – Ahmed Deedat argues that the Holy Ghost was long before Jesus. Because of this when Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit it must have been a different entity. Ie) Mary had the Holy Ghost in Luke 1 (although he admits he does not know what this means) Well, we have already seen the Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are interchangeable so what about people with the Holy Spirit before the crucifixion? 19


Was John the Baptist filled with the Holy Spirit all the time? Before Pentecost, the Holy Spirit never lived inside a person all the time – continuously. The Holy Spirit did not remain permanently in a person until the New Testament. That is why Jesus said He was going to send the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). Something new was going to occur. Saul is one example where the Holy Spirit did not remain (1 Sam. 10:6; 16:14) and King David is another. In fact, King David feared the Lord would take the Holy Spirit from him (Ps. 51:11). Today, the Holy Spirit lives inside a Christian forever. This is implied in the great promise of God (Heb. 8:7-13). When the Holy Spirit came upon, not in, an Old Testament saint the manifestations or miracles of the Spirit did not always occur. When Samson grew up the “Spirit of the LORD began to stir him” (Judges 13:24-25). It is not until later occasions that the “Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily” (Judges 14:6, 19; 15:14). The presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of Old Testament saints did not mean they performed wonders or miracles. So the Holy Spirit could have “come on” John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah - Jesus Christ - at birth and yet the Spirit may not have remained. It is also possible the power of the Spirit did not occur until he was an adult. If the Holy Spirit “came on” John the Baptist at birth, the Holy Spirit could have come "on” Jesus at birth. But we do not know if that happened since the New Testament does not explicit say so. None of the gospels explicitly say that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit before His baptism.12

Time 7:05 – Ahmed Deedat Addresses John 16:12-13 and makes a case for Muhammad being the spirit of truth. I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. (John 16.12-13) The disciples could not bear his teaching now because they were ordinary men devoid of power to comprehend or apply what he said. The Spirit of Truth was indeed in Jesus, but was not yet in his disciples, so they were unable to follow the spiritual elements in his teaching. But after the ascension they received the Spirit and could now communicate and understand his teaching because the Spirit of Truth was in them as well. Source: http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/muhammad.html The Holy Spirit will come and will speak whatever the Spirit hears, that is, what it hears from Jesus. Jesus will continue to communicate to his disciples through the Holy Spirit. That is how he will continue to be made known to them in the future. This is an explicit statement of ongoing revelation: that more is to be revealed by the Holy Spirit after Jesus is gone. To paraphrase what Jesus says: “the Spirit will make know what the Spirit is told from the Father. The spirit will declare the things that are coming in the future and will make my thoughts know to you. It will receive my words and declare them to you.” 13 That is why Jesus said "it is to your advantage that I go away". This is made equally clear elsewhere in the Bible:

20


What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him, God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 1 Corinthians 2.9-13. Paul makes it plain that the Spirit had already been given and if it had not, it could not have been to any advantage to the disciples to be without Jesus once he had ascended to heaven. 14

Time 7:49 - Ahmed Deedat asks a question for Christians: “What new thing has he (the Holy Spirit) given you in the last 2000 years?” He claims no Christian can answer this and thus Muhammad is the answer by reveling the Qur’an Three come to mind right away: Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation. Holy Spirit and Revelation Isaiah captures our situation; he paints four pictures of our condition in Isaiah 59:10, each pictures the helpless condition of humanity. Notice Isaiah includes himself, saying “We”, the “blindness’ of the human condition is at issue. • • • •

We grope for the wall like the blind, We grope as if we had no eyes; We stumble at noonday as at twilight; We are as dead men in desolate places.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit revealed the communication of God to fallen humanity. The Holy Spirit then gives us the ability to understand the words revealed to humanity. In our fallen state, we are enveloped in darkness, unless God reached down to us, we would be without hope. These are two aspects of the Holy Spirit’s revelation; 1. He reveals God’s Word 2. He gives us the ability to understand the revelation. 1.The Spirit reveals God’s Word How does the Spirit reveal the Word of God? When we read the Bible, we see the different ways God spoke; Moses for example went to Mt. Sinai and was with God on the Mountain for forty days, while David wrote under the power of the Spirit. Ezekiel caught up by the Spirit, was taken to Jerusalem. John in Revelation sees and talks to the resurrected Jesus, Jesus tells him to write a letter to seven churches. Paul saw a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and was commissioned to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. These are just a few examples, but we can see God’s method of revelation is not uniform. The Bible was transmitted through the power of the Holy Spirit; it is recorded in a written format. Yes, God used human agents to pen the words, but these authors were working under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Through

21


written transmission, the Words of God were recorded, and through the generations, the words were transmitted to the present era. The role of the Holy Spirit in the transmission of scripture is noted in Zechariah.

"Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts. Zechariah 7:12 A. God dictated the message In some cases, God directly dictated the message, such as in the book of Revelation chapters 2 and 3, where Jesus tells John what to write to the Seven-churches (Revelation 2-3). God in Exodus wrote the Ten Commandments in the stone, which Moses carried down Mt. Sinai.

10 "Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly. 11 "And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant. Deuteronomy 9:10-11 B. Prophets wrote under Inspiration In other cases, the prophets recorded what they saw and did under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They were not dictating the words of God, but were recording their own words and impressions, under the power of the Spirit. For example, the Davidic Psalms were written under the power of the Spirit, Jesus says David wrote under the power of the Spirit (see also Acts 1:16).

36 "For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." ' Mark 12:36 Moses also under the power of the Holy Spirit recorded the history of creation, including events such as what happened at the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve fell. How could Moses have known the details of these events, unless God’s Spirit revealed them? All of Genesis took place before the birth of Moses, with the death of Joseph being the last verse. The New Testament, like the Old was written under the direction of the Holy Spirit, this was the promise Jesus gave to the disciples.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26 The disciples then affirmed the written transmission of the other disciples, Peter affirmed Paul’s words as scripture (2 Peter 3;15-16).

22


C. Prophets had dreams and visions: Prophets also had dreams and visions. In these dreams and visions, the Holy Spirit revealed to the prophets the very words of God, through the interpretation of the dream and vision. Dreams occur while the person sleeps, while visions take place when the person is awake. In both instances, God through the power of the Spirit revealed His Word. Peter was on the roof of his house praying, and fell into a trance, seeing a vision. Jesus spoke to Peter, telling him to go with the men sent from the house of Cornelius (Acts 10). Ezekiel, a Jewish captive of Babylon, had visions of God and was taken by the Spirit to Jerusalem (Ezekiel 8;3). Ezekiel reported what he saw and heard, under the power of the Spirit, thus the book of Ezekiel came to be. In regards to dreams, God even gave dreams to unbelievers such as Pharaoh (Genesis 41) and Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2), King of Babylon. Under the power of the Holy Spirit, Joseph and Daniel interpreted these dreams, which allowed them to elevate to positions to power in Babylon and Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of Daniel chapter 2, is foundational to Bible prophecy. Daniel under the power of the Spirit was able to tell the king his dream was and what it meant (Daniel 4:8). 2. God’s Word is revealed to us A. God chooses who believes The Bible is big book; the King James translation for example has the following statistics, books in the Bible: Chapters: Verses: Words: Letters:

66 1,189 31,101 783,137 3,566,480

the Bible is actually a library of scripture recorded over a 1500-year period. The Bible is more than just a book, the contents are spiritual, which means not just anybody can understand what it says.

Just as the Spirit of God revealed its word to the prophets, the Spirit of God must reveal its contents to the reader. Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees (Acts 23:6) according to his own words, he knew the words of the prophets, beyond most, but until Jesus revealed Himself to Paul, Paul was in darkness. Paul could not see Jesus as the Messiah revealed by the prophets in the Old Testament, not until the Spirit of God moved in his heart, when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. 19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. 20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God. 21 Then all who heard were amazed, and said, "Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he might bring them bound to the chief priests?" 22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ. Acts 9:17-22 23


Notice Paul did not know who Jesus was before he met him on the road. To Paul Jesus was a false Messiah, who had misled Israel. After being filled with the Holy Spirit (vs. 17), Paul spent time with the disciples in Damascus, and he then headed to the Synagogue. There, through the power of the Holy Spirit, he confounded those who were formally allied with him, proving Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. B. Belief is depends on God Paul is like me or you, just like Paul, God’s Spirit allows us to see Jesus, without God’s Spirit, we are blind to Jesus. Jesus is just another prophet or one of the many ways to heaven. Knowing Jesus is not the work of human knowledge or intelligence but the Spirit. Human knowledge and wisdom is often hinders the work of the Spirit. Listen to what Jesus says about, the knowledge of God, ask yourself, who is hindered from this knowledge?

21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 22 "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Luke 10;21-22 The wise and prudent are those who are wise in the wisdom of this world. While the babes referred to here are the unlearned, those who lack in worldly wisdom. Further, we need to understand, Christ is the one who reveals the identity of the Father. Becoming dependent on the Holy Spirit is a sign of growth, contrasted to those who depend on the flesh and their own wisdom. Personal pride and glory prevent the seeker from finding Christ. Notice God is the one who reveals Himself it is not our doing.

44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; I Corinthians 1:26-27 Therefore, if we want to be used to the highest potential of our being, we need to learn to be led by God’s spirit, and not our flesh or earthly wisdom. The Greek word for wisdom used in Luke 10:21 and I Cor. 1:26 is sophos, this is where we get our word philosophy (philo-love sophos-wisdom). C. Knowing the name Jesus is not enough To know Jesus requires the revelation by God’s Spirit. Many people in the world might confess belief in Jesus, but professing belief does not mean you believe. True belief is demonstrated by the revealing of the Spirit, which then dwells inside the believer. Jesus makes this very clear in John 3:3,6,9, the believer must be “Born again”, which means being born of the Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit dwelling in the believer there is no real belief.

24


5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' John 3:5-7 This might be hard concept for some to follow, think for a moment the name Jesus is actually the anglicized way of pronouncing the Greek translation of Hebrew name Yeshua. The name Jesus is Yeshua in the Hebrew. Though today the name Jesus is identified with the biblical Jesus, the Muslims, Mormons and others also have a “Jesus”. A distinction must be made between the biblical Jesus and the Jesus created by the flesh. Though the Jesus of Islam and Mormonism have the same name, they are different in nature. For example, the Muslim Jesus is not the Son of God and he did not die on the cross. The Mormon Jesus, is the brother of Satan, he married Mary, Martha and Mary, and is one of many gods. Paul had to deal with this very issue in the Church at Corinth; Paul refers to “another Jesus” and a “different gospel”.

3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-you may well put up with it! 2 Cor. 11:3-4 For this very reason Jesus warns on the day of Judgment, how many people will be deceived by a “another Jesus”. He records His response, “I never knew you” He will respond on that day. The sad part is they thought they had truth, but the source of their truth was a lie, they were in fact deceived by Satan, who appealed to their flesh, they rejected the simplicity of the Gospel for a lie. Jesus says about that day,

21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' Matthew 7:21-23 Many will claim to have done things in the name of Jesus; however what they will lack is relationship. Jesus says, “I never knew you”, in other words there was never a relationship there. Even though works were done in the name of Jesus, Jesus was not involved. Their “Jesus” was not revealed by the Spirit, but by flesh, the creation of men.

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Romans 8:9 (Above 15)

25


Time 8:20 – Ahmed Deedat Says there are so many Masculine pronouns that the Bible CANNOT be talking about a spirit and it MUST be a man. (8 masculine pronouns) The fact that Jesus always speaks of the Spirit in the masculine gender in no way suggests that the Comforter must be a man as Ahmed Deedat suggest. God himself is always spoken of in both the Bible and the Qur'an in the masculine gender and God is spirit - John 4.24. In the same way Jesus always speaks of the Comforter as a spirit and not as a man10

Time 9:12 – Ahmed Deedat makes a point that every time the word “spirit is used in the bible is doesn’t mean ghost” i.e.) 7 spirits of God in Revelations We have already seen that Spirit and ghost are interchangeable when referencing the third personage of the Holy trinity. It is true that every time the Bible uses the word spirit is it not in reference to the third personage of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit (such as in Revelations), but this does not mean we are at liberty to pick and choose when we apply what meaning. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 2 Peter 1:20 For sheer length I do not have time to go into the 7 spirits of God in Revelations but we are not talking about the same Holy Spirit that is being discussed as the reference to Mohammad. Ahmed Deedat is not building a case that the 7 spirits of God are a reference to Muhammad but that the Holy Spirit as mentioned by Jesus is the prophecy of Muhammad, and thus I will not get into an eschatology discussion in this article. There are many resources available on this topic.

Time 9:39 – Ahmed Deedat says “..in the same John, the same John, the first epistle of John, chapter 5 verse 4..” It’s also worth noting that we were just talking about the gospel of John and we have now moved to the epistle of John. Ahmed Deedat also misquotes the verse as he means 1 John 4:1 not 1 John 5:4. Not a big deal just pointing it out as a matter of record.

Time 9:50 – Ahmed Deedat makes the case that based on 1 John 4:1 that the word prophet and Spirit is used interchangeably. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1

26


Believe it or not, I am actually inclined to agree with Ahmed Deedat on this point. However I find it interesting that he would use this verse as this is a principle verse that Christians would use to show Muhammad as a false prophet. The referents of pneuvmati and pneuvmata in 4:1. In the previous verse, 1 John 3:24, the author tells the readers that one of the ways in which they may be assured that God “resides” in them is by the (Holy) Spirit which he has given to believers. Now, in a section closely tied to the preceding one, the author realizes the need for further qualification because the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit active in the world. Thus in 4:1 the readers are warned, “do not believe every spirit (pneuvmati, pneumati), but test the spirits (pneuvmata, pneumata) to determine if they are from God.” One could argue that the plural here indicates a reference to demonic or evil spirits behind the human prophets which inspire them. However, the primary contrast in 1 John is not between believers and multiple evil spirits, but between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit (4:6).The readers must be warned not to make the mistake of thinking that every spirit which influences human behavior is the Spirit of God. There are two spirits at work to influence human behavior, the Spirit of truth (toV pneu'ma th' ajlhqeiva [to pneuma ths alhqeias] in 4:6), that is, the Spirit of God, and the spirit of deceit (mentioned explicitly in 4:6 as toV pneu'ma th' plavnh [to pneuma ths planhs]), that is, the evil spiritual being known as Satan. The same opposition between these two spirits is found in the Gospel of John in 16:8-11, which describes the conflict between the Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) and the “Ruler of this world” (Satan, the devil). But while the author of 1 John views these two spirits as real entities which are at work in the world, their influence is evident in terms of its effect on human beings (note how the writer shifts easily from discussing the Spirits in 4:1-3 to addressing the readers and the opponents directly as “you” [uJmei', Jumeis] and “they” [aujtoiv, autoi] in 4:4-5). The Holy Spirit influences and motivates the human spirits of the believers in the community to which the author is writing, while the evil spirit of deceit influences and motivates the human spirits of the opponents with their false teaching. The author’s use of dokimavzete (dokimazete, “test”) in 4:1. According to the third edition of the Bauer lexicon, the verb means “to make a critical examination of something. to determine genuineness, put to the test, examine.” Since in the second half of the present verse the author mentions “false prophets” who have “gone out into the world” it appears highly likely that his concept of testing the spirits is drawn from the Old Testament concept of testing a prophet to see whether he is a false prophet or a true one. The procedure for testing a prophet is found in Deut 13:2-6 and 18:15-22. An Old Testament prophet was to be tested on the basis of (1) whether or not his predictive prophecies came true (Deut 18:22) and (2) whether or not he advocated idolatry (Deut 13:1-3). In the latter case the people of Israel are warned that even if the prophet should perform an authenticating sign or wonder, his truth or falsity is still to be judged on the basis of his claims, i.e., whether or not he advocates idolatry. Here in 1 John the idea of “testing the spirits” comes closer to the second Old Testament example of “testing the prophets” mentioned above. According to 1 John 4:2-3, the spirits are to be tested on the basis of their christological confession: the person motivated by the Spirit of God will confess “Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh”; while the person motivated by the spirit of deceit will not confess “Jesus” and is therefore not from God. This comes somewhat closer to the idea expressed by Paul in 1 Cor 12:3 27


where the person speaking charismatic utterances is also to be judged on the basis of his christological confession: “So I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is cursed,’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.” The identification of the “false prophets” who have “gone out into the world” in 4:1. It seems clear that the “false prophets” mentioned in 1 John 4:1 are the author’s opponents, since he has already labeled them “antichrists” in 2:18 and 2:22, and uses this same label again in 4:3.510 It is best to understand the adjective polloiv (polloi, “many”) as implying that there were a considerable number of opponents who withdrew from fellowship with the Christian community to which the author is writing. All the opponents, however (not just some of them), are viewed as “false prophets” here, because according to 4:3 and 4:6 the spirit that motivates every one of them is the spirit of deceit. In the author’s antithetical framework there are only two possible alternatives: either a person is motivated by the Spirit of God, in which case he is a genuine believer and belongs to the faithful Christian community to which the author is writing; or one is motivated by the spirit of deceit, in which case he belongs to the opponents, who are ‘false prophets’ because like the false prophet of Deut 13:1-3 they advocate a form of idolatry. As far as the author is concerned this ‘idolatry’ consists in their attempt to seduce others into adopting their heretical christological views while rejecting the apostolic testimony (1 John 1:1-4) about who Jesus is (4:2). The description of the false prophets as having “gone out into the world” appears to be a direct reference to the secession of the opponents in 2:19 since the same verb (ejxevrcomai [exercomai], “to go out, to depart”) is used in both places. Not only that, but the same verb also occurs in John 13:30 as a description of the departure of Judas Iscariot, who in the Fourth Gospel is called “devil” by Jesus himself (John 6:70-71; cf. 13:2). To leave the author’s congregation and go out into the “world” is, in the framework of Johannine theology, a clear indication that the secessionists are viewed by the author as unsaved, since he warns the readers in 1 John 2:15-17 not to love the “world,” which is described as transitory rather than eternal (2:17), and in the Fourth Gospel when Jesus prays for the disciples, he specifically states that the “world” hates them (17:14) and they do not belong to it (17:14, 16).16

Time 10:17 - Ahmed Deedat makes the case that based on 1 John 5 and chapter 3:42-45 of the Qur’an that all Muslims profess Jesus as the Christ clearly Mohammad is a True Prophet. Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5 Bible)

Behold! the angels said "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah. (Sura 3:45 Qur’an)

28


It should be noted that 1 John 4:2 is the verse directly following the question of how to test a Spirit (or prophet) and not 1 John 5:1. Let’s look at both. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;(1 John 4:2) This is the test for the spirits: every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God. Note that the test is both confessional (concerning what a person believes) and christological (concerning what a person believes about Jesus). Presumably the opponents would not be able to make this confession, since this is designed to test the truth or falsehood of their prophetic claims. The end of the first century witnessed many heretical teachings. One of these heresies, Gnosticism, taught that Jesus Christ was not really a flesh-and-blood human being but a spirit that was manifested as a human being. This was undoubtedly one of the things John was alluding to when he wrote these verses. However, there is also a deeper meaning to these words that John was inspired to write. The Holy Spirit inspired John to use the Greek perfect participle for the words "has come" in the above verses. The perfect tense implies not only the historical fact of Jesus Christ having been born as a flesh-and-blood human being but also the present continuance of this fact. John is saying that Jesus Christ is still human in the sense that He is living His life over again in human beings who submit to Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. The message of this scripture is simply this: A teacher is of God if he teaches that Jesus Christ is coming—living His life over again in the flesh of every true, regenerated Christian—and that a Christian must follow Him wherever He leads and emulate Him in every way. But a teacher who teaches that one does not have to follow Christ and that it is not necessary for Christ to live in the flesh of His disciples is not of God. John says that this false teaching stems from the spirit of antichrist (verse 3). Now let’s look at 1 john 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5 Bible) Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: John has often mentioned being born of God (as in 1 John 2:29, 3:9, and 4:7). Here he tells us how one is born of God: whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ. This means believing that Jesus is their Messiah, not just the Messiah in the generic sense. i. John’s great emphasis has been on love, but he never wants anyone to believe they earn salvation by loving others. We are born of God when we put our trust on Jesus and His saving work in our lives.

29


ii. We also understand that John was not talking about a mere intellectual assent to Jesus being Messiah (as even the demons might have, as described in James 2:19). Instead, he means a trust in and reliance on Jesus as Messiah. iii. Additionally, John makes it plain we must believe Jesus is the Christ. There are many who believe Jesus had the “Christ-spirit” – as they claim also Confucius, Mohammed, Buddha and certain moderns did. But we would never say Jesus “has” the Christ – Jesus is the Christ. Everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him: Being born of God also has these two effects. It is assumed that we will love God (Him who begot us), because we are born again into His family. But it is also assumed that we will love others who are begotten of Him - our brothers and sisters in Christ. i. This is the common ground of Christians - not race, not class, not culture, not language, nor any other thing except for a common birth in Jesus Christ, and the common Lordship of Jesus. ii. To love all others in the family of God means that you do not limit your love to your own denomination or group, to your own social or financial status, to your own race, to your own political perspective, or to your own exact theological persuasion. If any of these things mean more to us than our common salvation, and the common Lordship of Jesus Christ, then something is very wrong. Now lets look at what we can gather from this information Ahmed Deedat points to these first three verses of 1 John 4 in order to try to demonstrate that Muhammad passes this test of prophethood. He argues that since Muhammad confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh that therefore Christians ought to consider Muhammad a true prophet. Sami Zaatari, for example, argues: The error in this type of argumentation is clear in light of the fact that 1.) The meaning of confessing that Jesus has come in the flesh is misunderstood by Ahmed Deedat and 2.) The test of prophethood is not simply limited to v. 1-3; the test extends throughout the entire chapter. Regarding point 1, there are two major interpretations. The first is that “confessing that Jesus has come in the flesh” is to be taken as a s tatement about Jesus’ incarnation – God becoming man (John 1:1-3, 14; Philippians 2:6-11, John 8:58). This is the view of scholars like Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer who remarked: “The Spirits and prophets are to be tested by whether they confess that Jesus “is come in the flesh,” a confession that has two elements of content. It affirms both that Jesus existed before and also that He has come in the flesh. In other words, spirits and prophets must acknowledge both Jesus’ pre-existence and His incarnation.”1 Hence, Muhammad fails this test since he did not affirm that Jesus pre-existed as God and became a man in the incarnation as the Scriptures clearly teach. The second interpretation is that “confessing that Jesus has come in the flesh” is to be taken as a polemic against an early Gnostic heretic sect called Docetism which, because of their Gnostic presupposition, believed all matter to be evil and hence 30


rejected the belief that Jesus was truly man. They believed Jesus was only a spirit or phantom.2 However, even if this were the proper interpretation it can still be argued that “has come in the flesh” is a reference to both Jesus’ true humanity as well as his pre-existence and incarnation. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In order for Jesus to truly “come in the flesh” in human form it assumes he came from somewhere (pre-existence) and based on the totality of Scripture we ought to conclude that Jesus came in the flesh after leaving His exalted status in Heaven as the second person of the Trinity. If Ahmed Deedat is going to take the surface level approach and claim this means anyone who says Jesus is Messiah and was truly alive is from God, then he would have to say Joseph Smith, the prophet of Mormonism was a true prophet since Smith affirmed that Jesus was the Messiah and that he lived. Obviously Ahmed Deedat would not say such a thing so when Ahmed Deedat says that since Muhammad believed Jesus was the Messiah who lived without question proves “Muhammad is from God” he must be consistent and say it proves Joseph Smith is from God as well. As we have seen Ahmed Deedat does not understand the Christological nature of 1 John 4:1-3 and thus his argument falls apart. Muhammad Fails the 1 John 4 Test Ahmed Deedat’s second error is that he assumes the prophethood test is limited to1 John v. 1-3. However, as we will see, the entire chapter contains tests that people must pass in order to be true Christians and that Muhammad fails the test. For example, to demonstrate that Muhammad is an antiChrist who must not be followed, 1 John 4:15 says: “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God” (1 John 4:15 ESV). This clearly shows that the testing does not end at v.3. In v. 15 we see that in order to be considered in God (a true believer), you must confess that Jesus is the Son of God. However, this is something the antiChrist Muhammad emphatically denied: “Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is (S. 19:34-35 Pickthall).” Therefore, according to the 1 John 4 prophethood test Muhammad is a false prophet. We are also told that the true message of God’s love is that not only does the Father have a Son but the Son was sent to die for the sins of His people. “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10 ESV).” Muhammad fails and is shown to be a false prophet with the spirit of anti-Christ since he rejected Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice on the cross for our sins and claims that Allah tricked everyone to believe the crucifixion! 31


“And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain (S. 4:157 Pickthall).” (Above 17)

Time 11:10- Ahmed Deedat makes a case based on John 3:6 Prophets are spiritually inclined and are spiritual opposed to materialistically inclined (being material) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.(John 3:6) Lets take a look at this verse and see what Jesus is talking about. Is he talking being spiritually minded or materialistically minded? In order properly understand what Jesus is talking about will need to look a verses 1-8 (1-21 is better but not required for this argument) Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. “Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'” The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."(John 3:1-8) Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews, meaning he was a member of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the highest court or tribunal of the Jews. It came into existence sometime during the four hundred year Intertestamental Period between the Old and New Testament. It was first mentioned in history during the reign of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B.C.). It was group of seventy Jewish aristocrats with the high priests as its head. The council was made up of tribal heads, scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees. Nicodemus is only mentioned in the New Testament by the Apostle John. The first time he is mentioned is in Chapter 3, when he came by night inquiring as to who was Jesus. The second time John mentions him is when Jesus was in the Temple court addressing the people during the Feast of the Tabernacles. Several of the Sanhedrin were sent to bring Jesus before them, but was so awed by His words they did 32


not comply. Nicodemus defended Jesus and was himself accused of being a Galilean. The Galileans were looked down on by the self-righteous religious leaders of Jerusalem. (John 7:50-52) The last time John mentions Nicodemus is after the crucifixion when he brought spices needed to embalm the body of Jesus. Many conclude that his actions show he became a believer. Nicodemus came to Jesus at night so as not to be seen of the other Pharisees and Jews. Clearly, in his heart he knew that Jesus was no ordinary man. He had seen the miracles that Christ did and heard His message. He states that he knew no man could do the miracles that Jesus did unless God was with him. Nicodemus, being a Pharisee knew the Old Testament scriptures and that Daniel and the prophets had prophesied of the coming of the Messiah. To his credit he was sincerely seeking to find out who Jesus was for himself even though doing so secretly. John in mentioning this event is continuing to present the evidence that Jesus was the Messiah. There could be no better witness to the miracles of Jesus Christ than a religious Pharisee. The Pharisee's standing as a man of character and one who could be trusted was impeccable. John's account gives us incite into the thinking among the religious leaders of Israel. No matter how aggressively they outwardly opposed the truth, they knew that Jesus was come from God. They recognized that John the Baptist was truly a prophet of God and that he proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah. But most of them in guarding their own positions a religious leaders and for economic and political reasons rejected God's message and Jesus as their promised Messiah. Jesus' Response "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, 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. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:3-7). There has been a great deal of commentary written on this passage and much of it gives a false interpretation of Jesus' statements. Jesus makes two statements. First, He said unless a man be "born again" he cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. Nicodemus understood what the Kingdom of God was, but he did not understand what being "born again" meant and in typical fashion responded with an earthly response. The Kingdom of God was God's promised blessing and salvation to the Nation of Israel. He was plainly puzzled by being told he could not enter the Kingdom unless he was "born again." We must understand that Nicodemus was a good Jew, although unsaved. He thought that his birth as a Jew assured him a place in the coming promised Kingdom. He prided himself in keeping the Old Testament Law and being morally upright and religious. He did not see that entrance into the Kingdom came by a spiritual rebirth and brought about by grace through faith in God's promises. He did not understand the spiritual birth. His response to Jesus shows he had no spiritual understanding of the things of God. He asked the childlike question, how could a man when old, enter the second time into his mother's womb and be reborn?

33


Men in the Old Testament were saved in the same way that men today are saved. Salvation has always been a matter of one's believing God and putting their trust in Him. In the Old Testament men were renewed spiritually because they believed God and His promises. Their faith in God promises and revealed truth saved them and they served the Lord because the believed. The Old Testament saints understood that keeping the Law was their responsibility, but that it did not save them. In the dispensation of the Old Testament, believers were not permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit as believers are today which began on the Day of Pentecost as Acts 2 records. God on that day instituted the local church, and those who in believed Jesus Christ became spiritually born again people. Salvation has always been a matter of spiritually receiving God's truth in belief. The Pharisees thought themselves worthy to be a part of God's Kingdom because of their perceived good works. They ignored and refused to see that Isaiah 64:6 applied to them. The verse states, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Isaiah 64:6). Jesus shortly before His crucifixion pointedly condemned these religious leaders of Israel saying repeatedly to them "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. . ." Ten times Matthew 23 records Jesus' poignant words of condemnation. Jesus knew Nicodemus' heart that he did not see himself needing a spiritual birth. Nicodemus saw his self-righteousness as being sufficient to gain him God's approval. Thus Jesus' response to Nicodemus' inquiry was to reveal to him his need of a spiritual rebirth. Jesus' reply is often greatly misunderstood. 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 baptismal regenerationists teach that being born of water refers to water baptism. They look at this passage through the eyes of their false doctrine and incorrectly use this passage to teach a person must be baptized to be saved. Baptism is a ritual, a work and an act that one preforms. The New Testament absolutely teaches that no work of man can merit him salvation. In Ephesians 2:8-9, God refutes this false idea. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). So Jesus, without question, is not talking about being baptized in responded to Nicodemus. Baptism in the New Testament follows repentance and salvation and does not save. Over sixty times in the New Testament God states that one is saved by faith and belief in Jesus Christ without any mention of baptism or any other work of man. Being born of water simply refers to being born as a human. Human birth to the Jew meant that he had the favor of God, being God's chosen people. He saw himself as superior to all other peoples on earth. The Jews called all nonJews Gentiles and heathens. The Pharisee, being at the top of the Jewish society, saw themselves as superior even to the lesser or ordinary Jews. Jesus was saying to Nicodemus that his Jewish birth (born of water) would not see him into the Kingdom of God, and that he needed to be born spiritually. The implication is clear. Nicodemus was not a spiritual man and was unsaved, lost and dying in his sins. He had not understanding of salvation being a spiritual matter. Jesus to made the point clearer stating, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This statement refutes the idea that Jesus' reference to being "born of water" refers to baptism. He plainly states that which is born of flesh (born of water verse 5) is flesh. Jesus is illustrating His point by comparing human birth with spiritual birth. Human birth gives a man entrance into our physical existence, and likewise spiritual birth is required to enter the Kingdom of God. The verse says nothing about water baptism. 34


The next statement of Jesus was "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." Jesus is stating what was very obvious. Nicodemus, though religious had no concept of the spiritual nature of heaven. This is the curse of a works system of salvation. It substitutes the spiritual with human and earthly things of man. It denies a person of the benefits of receiving true salvation and its accompanying spiritual rewards. Jesus was revealing to Nicodemus the Holy Spirit's work in true salvation indwelling the believer and giving him the spiritual nature of God. The New Birth comes by the Holy Spirit "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). The Lord used the illustration of the action of the wind to explain this truth to Nicodemus. He makes the point that the wind blows and a man can hear it, but he cannot tell from where it comes or where it goes. In other words, we can know the wind exists because we can see its affect on the things it touches and the sound it makes. We cannot see the wind, but we can see what it does. The Spirit is invisible to human eyes, but His work or regeneration came be clearly seen. This is the only valid description of the Holy Spirit or God as a Spirit. We cannot see God, but we can see what He does. Jesus said it is the same with those born of the Spirit of God. We cannot see the spiritual birth occur, but we can see the result that it has on those who experience the new birth. Nicodemus in his heart was rejecting what Jesus was telling him. Even though the Lord explained it to him, he did not understand or accept this truth. Jesus is saying to him that he could see and know the wind was real and existed. Nicodemus could not see it or know where the wind came from or where it was going, but could know the wind unmistakably exists. Likewise, though not actually seen, the Spirit also exists and spiritually changed the lives of men. (Above 18)

Video Part 4 Time 0:39 – Ahmed Deedat argues that every Christian claims to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit including Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, and cults. He asks with so many people claiming to have the Holy Spirit are “going in different directions” This is a legitimate question of the Christian faith. It should first be noted that not everyone who claims to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit actually is. Since the Bible teaches that all believers will receive the Holy Spirit, the real question becomes “is someone a genuine Christian?”. How do you know you're really a Christian? That is a crucial question. The Scriptures give several elements of assurance that can show us we're truly saved. They can be categorized under the topics of objective assurance and subjective assurance.

35


a) Objective assurance Objective assurance comes from outside us; it is based on the godly things the Spirit produces in our lives. That's what Peter was talking about in 2 Peter 1. If you see those things in your life, it will confirm in your mind that you're truly saved.

b) Subjective assurance Subjective assurance is based on something within us, namely, the witness of the Spirit. Whereas the former type of assurance is visible, the latter is invisible. Our internal assurance is described in several passages in the New Testament. (1) 2 Corinthians 1:12--Paul says, "Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, we have behaved ourselves in the world." Paul was saying, "I know what's going on in my life because of the testimony of my conscience. Something rings true in my conscience that my behavior is pleasing to God." (2) 1 John 5:10--"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." That indwelling witness who bears testimony to Christ is the Holy Spirit. He attests to the validity of a believer's salvation. (3) Romans 8:14-16--"As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage [legalism] again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father" (vv. 14-15). "Abba" is the equivalent to daddy, a very endearing term. It implies that we can relate to God like a child talks to his loving father. Verse 16 tells us that the indwelling Spirit gives us the confidence to enter God's presence: "The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." The internal witness of the Spirit in our lives is of little help to others because no one can read our hearts. But that kind of confirmation is helpful to us. The apostle John deals with objective assurance in 1 John 2. The visible proof to the individual, the church, and the world that you are a Christian is the attitudes and actions that are produced by the Holy Spirit in your life. When anyone tells me they have doubts about their Christianity, the first questions I usually ask are: Have you applied yourself to godliness? Are you reading the Word? Are you spending time in prayer? Are you learning the Word of God? Are you desiring to draw near to God and to obediently follow the Holy Spirit? If you can answer yes to those questions, you will have confirmation that you're a believer because the fruits of salvation are visible in your life. That is the theme of 1 John 2:3-11. He provides two tests by which we can evaluate the claims of a person who professes to be a Christian.

36


Two Tests That Tell the Truth 1. The doctrinal test a) Do you confess Christ? A person's beliefs about Christ will validate his claim to be a Christian. The Greek word translated "confess" means "to say the same thing." The first part of the doctrinal test asks about the person in question: Does he say the same thing about Christ that God says in the Bible? If he says, "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe Christ is God," then he's not saying the same thing about Christ that God said. He is not confessing Christ. (1) 1 John 2:22-23--"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also." (2) 1 John 4:2--"By this know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." (3) 1 John 5:1--"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Being truly saved is a matter of confessing or agreeing that Jesus is the Christ. b) Do you confess your sin? A Christian says the same thing about his sin that God says. If someone comes along and tells me he's a Christian but doesn't acknowledge his sin, I don't believe him. (1) 1 John 1:6, 8--"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie .... If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (2) 1 John 1:9-10--Verse 9 tells us that if we are confessing sin, then we are the ones being forgiven--we are the true Christians. Verse 10 says, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

2. The moral test a) Do you obey God's Word? First John 2:3 says, "By this we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." b) Do you love others? First John 2:10 says, "He that loveth his brother abideth in the light." The issue in 1 John 2:3-11 is the objective moral test of true Christianity: obedience and love. The Christians John wrote to were being influenced by false teachers or "antichrists," according to 1 John 37


2:18. Therefore, John exhorts his readers to "test the spirits" (4:1), rather than naively believe their claims. If they could see obedience and love in the lives of the teachers, those qualities would attest to their spiritual life.(Above 19)

Denomination differences The second part of Ahmed Deedat’s statement is that there are many Christians going in many different directions. He references many 14 types of Baptists as an example of this. This is a misleading point. So why are there so many Christian denominations? To answer this question, we must first differentiate between denominations within the body of Christ and non-Christian cults and false religions. Presbyterians and Lutherans are examples of Christian denominations. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are examples of cults (groups claiming to be Christian but denying one or more of the essentials of the Christian faith). Islam and Buddhism are entirely separate religions. The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to “reform” the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries. The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with “methods” for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as the method of baptism; the availability of the Lord’s Supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the “sign” gifts in the modern era, and so on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word. (Above 20)

Time 2:19 – Ahmed Deedat challenges Christians to come up with one truth that the Holy Spirit reveled after being imparted This has already been extensively answered earlier. (Video part 3 – Time 7:49)

38


Time 3:10 – Ahmed Deedat says that the reason why the Holy Spirit could not impart new information due to the disciples “Little Faith”. He makes the case the Jesus repeatedly tells his disciples “they have little faith” and “you evil and perverted generation how long will I be among you”. For this reason they could not receive new information until Muhammad. And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you and put up with you? Bring your son here." (Luke 9:41) Well, he have seen that the Holy Spirit can, did, and does continue to impart new information to this day. But what Jesus mean when he made these statements? Jesus used this phrase several times as a real powerful teaching moment to challenge them and move them from their possible sin. What is little faith? The Greek word is Oligopistos and it means incredulous (unable or unwilling to believe something or be completely convinced), lacking confidence in Christ or little faith. There are four things laid out in the Gospel according to Matthew that are faith killers that cause us to be unable or unwilling to believe and have our full confidence in Jesus Christ. Let’s examine each one briefly. Matthew 6:30-34, “Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? “Therefore do not worry…” What we see in this passage is that “little faith” is caused by WORRY. The word “worry” means to be anxious or take thought and the Bible tells us in Philippians 4:6-7, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” We have our God who is all-powerful, all loving and so much more what do we have to worry about? Matthew 8:26, “But He said to them, “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?” Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.” Here we see Jesus telling His disciples that being FEARful is a cause of “little faith”. The word fearful means timid, faithless and fearful. I like the word timid as it means demonstrating a lack of courage. We are not to be self courageous but those who trust in Jesus can be courageous in Him. I like the quote (though I can’t remember who said it) “He who fears God need fear nothing else.” When our trust is completely in God and the only one who holds our fear is God then we need not be fearful but faith filled. Matthew 14:31, “And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” In this passage we see Jesus identifying DOUBT as the cause of “little faith”. The word doubt here means to waver in opinion. When our trust is in Jesus our opinion of Him cannot waver for it is based on the truth of God’s Word. James speaks of the one who doubts this way, “…for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.” James 1:6. We are to doubt nothing when it comes to our relationship with Jesus.

39


Matthew 16:8, “But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason/talk/discuss among yourselves because you have brought no bread?” In the fourth and final passage that we will look at Jesus identifies reasoning among ourselves as the source of “little faith”. The word reason means to reckon thoroughly. So a cause of “little faith” is to try and figure it out for yourself instead of trusting in the Lord. Isaiah 55:8-9, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” We don’t have to understand all of the “Why’s” we have to trust in the “Who”! ~Jason Starinieri So the four sources of the “Little Faith” syndrome pointed out by Jesus in these four Scriptures; Worry, Fear, Doubt and Reason, all attributed by the Savior as faith killers, those things that make us ‘little faithers’. They all rob us and take the place of faith. The word faith means – reliance & complete trust in & upon someone/something. For us as Christians we put our faith in Christ Jesus. Our faith is placed in His promise, for new life, salvation, the New Heaven, New Earth… New Us. We are called to place a lot of faith and Trust In Jesus. When we worry we are not relying on Jesus, when we fear we are not relying on Jesus, when we doubt we are not relying on Jesus and when we look to our own reason we are not relying on Jesus. Faith trusts in Jesus no matter what, no matter the obstacle. The Bible defines faith in Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” When we have faith in God it is the substance, more like the foundation of what we hope for. It is the evidence, the structure of what we do not see. Faith is what we stand on and what proves God will come through. Our Faith is the Home we build for Christ and Others to experience. Now our faith is not blind, we have the Word of God to give us guidance and comfort and to give this substance and evidence to our faith, the Bible even promises that by being in the Word our faith will increase (Romans 10:17). But we must avoid the faith killers. Are you worried about the unknown or even about the things you can see? Trust that God can work in any situation that comes your way. Are you afraid? Know that God’s love in Jesus will never forsake you and He is greater than anything you face. John from the Bible tells us that perfect love casts out all fears. You see Jesus is that perfect love that when we place our faith and trust in him we have nothing to fear. Are you in doubt? Know that there is no need for our God is faithful and has proven so by sending His Son to die for us. Do you insist upon your own reason? Isaiah 55 tells us a very powerful truth here that Gods ways our not our ways, our thoughts are not His. You see we can not fully grasp or reason anything about God or with God. To try and discuss it, make it make sense is 100% impossible when trying to be done by reason. But by Faith we see, by faith we know the truth and believe that God is the one worthy of putting our faith and hope and trust and love into. (Above 21)

40


Time 4:20 – Ahmed Deedat Claims the Muhammad is the Spirit of truth in John16:13 as he is the faithful prophet. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:13) We have already looked in detail at the Holy Spirit but what is this verse talking about Biblically? This is a verse of nearly incredible importance in the proper understanding of Christianity. Here is the cornerstone of faith.

He shall guide ... indicates a progressive revelation from one level to higher levels; and thus Revelation with its prophecies of the future exceeds what the apostles at first knew. In fact, this Gospel, written so long after the synoptics, has deeper insight into the mysteries of the kingdom of God than appears in them; but even here, the Holy Spirit did not go beyond what Jesus said, the greater insight resulting from more extended study of Jesus' words. Only in the matter of prophesying future events would it appear that the Holy Spirit empowered the apostles apart from the exact words of Jesus, and even this may not have been done except in the same manner as that of Old Testament prophets. If this word "guide" indicates (from its suggestion of a journey) a progression, in some degree, beyond the actual words of Christ, it was strictly limited to the apostles. Such a proposition as the following is absolutely untenable: A guide always means a pilgrimage, and a guide always means a process. The whole church of God today has a fuller apprehension of the truth than had those twelve men. The Spirit has been guiding us into all truth!

For he shall not speak from himself ... indicates that the Spirit is not the originator, or primary source, of truth, but a "remembrancer" of the truth conveyed by the Lord to the apostles.

And he shall declare unto you the things that are to come ... The glorious promises of this verse are the grounds of our hope in the sacred message of the apostolic company and our reason for receiving their word as true and infallible. (Above 22)

----------BREAK IN THE FLOW OF THE PRESENTATION ---------AHMED D EEDAT CHANGES THE DIRECTION OF HIS TALK IN THIS POINT . HE MOVES AWAY FROM SHOWING HOW M UHAMMAD IS SUPPOSEDLY IN THE BIBLE AND BEGINS TALKING ON THE LEGITIMACY OF THE QUR’AN, CLAIMING THE BIBLE HAS NO ANSWERS TO SOCIAL ISSUES IN THE WORLD AND EVIDENCE OF ISLAM. I WILL STILL REFUTE SOME OF POINTS BUT NOT WITH THE SAME ATTENTION THAT WAS USED IN DEFENSE OF BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE. LATER IN THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWER PORTION OF HIS DISCUSSION HE WILL RETURN TO MOHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE WITH NEW CLAIMS THAT I WILL ADDRESS THEN. 41


Time 5:25 – Ahmed Deedat claims the Bible does not have solutions to homosexuality, alcoholics, and pornography. There are MANY verses in the Bible that deal with these subjects. So many in fact, that if we looked at them all this response would be substantially longer. Since Ahmed Deedat doesn’t make any specific claims against the Bible aside from the much generalized claim, and since this is supposed to be a lecture on Muhammad in the Bible, I will not go into detail on this. If there are any questions related to any of these topics I’d be happy to discuss them separately.

Time 10:20 – Ahmed Deedat claims that in countries such as India, Pakistan, and south Africa Lowest Muslims have the lowest Alcoholic rates, Lowest gambling rates, Lowest prison rates, lowest devoice rates, Lowest Suicide Rate, and the Highest Charity I could not find statistics to prove or disprove many of these. Although I would not doubt drinking and gambling would be lower than in western countries.

Part 5 Time 0:21 –Ahmed Deedat claims that no one told him not to drink or gambling and that no one is controlling him or threatening him with punishment. Does this include being free from Sharia? Sharia (Arabic ‫ شريعة‬Sharīʿat; [ʃaˈriːʕa], "way" or "path") is the sacred law of Islam. Most Muslims believe Sharia is derived from two primary sources of Islamic law: the divine revelations set forth in the Qur'an, and the example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh jurisprudence interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur'an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists prefer to apply reasoning ('aql) rather than analogy in order to address difficult questions. Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails. Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the

42

Part 5 | Response: Muhammad in the Bible

interpretation of Sharia; while the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader, or political leader.

Liquor and gambling Liquor and gambling are expressly prohibited in the Qur'an, and Sharia law. Muhammad is reported to have said: "He who plays with dice is like the one who handles the flesh and blood of swine." Abd-Allah ibn Amr reported that Muhammad prohibited all games of chance and card playing that caused financial gain or loss. (Above 23)

Time 2:55 – Ahmed Deedat claims Christianity only pulls you from the filth, but the system that keeps you from it in the first place is better. Prevention is better than Cure. Christianity is equally preventative (if not more so). Ahmed Deedat is make a logical fallacy known as an incomplete comparision. An incomplete comparison is a misleading argument popular in advertising. For example, an advertiser might say "product X is better". This is an incomplete assertion, so can't be refuted. A complete assertion, such as "product X sells for a lower price than product Y" or "the new product X lasts longer than the old product X" could be tested and possibly refuted.24 Again, since Ahmed Deedat uses no scriptural references, I will not address this for sack of length.

Time 3:50 – Ahmed Deedat claims there are 7 Million more women than Men in America who can’t get husband due to homosexuality in America I realize Ahmed Deedat is making the case for Anti-homosexuality and pro-polygamy within the same argument but this is a somewhat misleading statistic. As of 2009 Female’s consisted of 50.7% of the total population in America25. Which actually puts the population difference close to 4 Million out of 307 Million people. This could be from many reasons including mortality and abortion rates.

43


Time 7:45 – Ahmed Deedat claims God is punishing Gays with AIDS Fundamentally, all disease is a judgment from God. Adam and Eve did not know corruption of any kind before the Fall. When God pronounced judgment on Adam, death entered the world (Genesis 3:19; Romans 5:12). All sickness, from the common cold to cancer, is part of the curse, and we who live in a cursed world are subject to decay. So, yes, AIDS / HIV and other STDs (along with all other diseases) are part of God’s judgment in a cursed world. The Bible plainly teaches that our choices bear consequences. Whatever a man sows, that’s what he reaps (Galatians 6:7-8). Righteousness brings blessing: “Keep my commands and you will live” (Proverbs 7:2); and sin brings judgment: “He who sows wickedness reaps trouble” (Proverbs 22:8). One of our problems is that we want total freedom to choose our actions, but we want them consequence-free. The reality is when we choose a course of action, we automatically choose its corresponding result. Scripture warns that sexual sin carries a built-in judgment from God. “He who sins sexually sins against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18). “God will judge . . . all the sexually immoral” (Hebrews 13:4). It cannot be denied that living according to Biblical principles (sexual fidelity within marriage) drastically reduces one’s chances of contracting HIV / AIDS and other STDs. Romans 1:18-32 is an indictment of the heathen, idolatrous world. It starts with these words: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men.” This passage teaches that the sin of homosexuality has its roots in a denial of God. It brings about shame, degradation, and a “due penalty.” Since STDs such as AIDS / HIV are attendant, for the most part, upon sexual sin, they must be considered as part of the “penalty” which reveals “the wrath of God” against the wickedness of men (verse 18). A key phrase is “God gave them over,” which occurs three times. God gave them over to sexual impurity (verse 24); to shameful lusts (verse 26); and to a depraved mind (verse 28). The meaning is that mankind chose to go its own way, and God allowed it. Granting mankind the freedom to go even further astray was itself a punishment on previous sin. None of this is to say that everyone with AIDS / HIV is guilty of sexual sin or that homosexuals are beyond redemption. Tragically, some people have been infected with AIDS / HIV by blood transfusions, by innocent contact with another person who has AIDS / HIV, and most sadly, by being conceived in the womb of a mother who has AIDS / HIV. The Christian response to AIDS / HIV should always be one of grace and mercy. No matter how a disease was contracted, our responsibility is to be ministers of grace, love, mercy, and forgiveness. We do not have the right or authority to proclaim that an AIDS / HIV contraction is a specific judgment from God on a specific sin in a person’s life. We have a responsibility to do good to all (Luke 10:29-37), and the Gospel we share is still “the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). (Above 26)

44


Time 8:28 –Ahmed Deedat says Polygamy is illegal and it’s perfectly acceptable to “sow your wild oats”. Sodomy is legal, lesbianism is legal This is a cultural argument about the current status of North America and has nothing to do with Christianity and even less to do with Muhammad in the Bible. Christianity does not endorse homosexuality or promiscuity, OR polygamy. All of these are sexual sins

Biblical view on polygamy In Matt. 19:4 we are told by Jesus that God created one “male and [one] female” and joined them in marriage. "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Mark 10:6-8) The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one. Eve was taken from Adams body and given back to him as his wife (singular) showing God’s approval of what the marriage union is to be like. God always spoke of man's “wife,” as singular, not wives. Notice it also states one father one mother. It wasn’t until sin made man fall (Gen. 4:23) that polygamy occurs. Cain was cursed; Lamech is a descendent of Cain and the first to practice polygamy. The first time polygamous relationship is found in the Bible is with a thriving rebellious society in sin; when a murderer named “Lamech [a descendant of Cain] took for himself two wives” (Gen.4:19, 23). The same Godly pattern of one man and one wife is lived by Noah. At the time of the Ark (Gen. 7:7), Noah took his one wife into the ark, all his son’s took one wife; God called Noah’s family righteous and pure. If polygamy were ordained of God, it would have made sense that Noah and his sons would have taken additional wives with them to repopulate the earth faster from the cataclysm. This was to be a permanent union between man and woman that they might be helpful to one another (Genesis 2:18). Marriage represents a relationship of both spiritual and physical unity. “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”(Hebrews 13:3-4) We have examples of saints in the Old Testament going off the commandment i.e Solomon, but this is not God approved. Many of the patriarchs took more than one wife. Abraham, by recommendation of Sarah, took her maid. Jacob was tricked through Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom 45


he had been betrothed. Polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained. In the Bible I count 15 examples of polygamy from the time of Lamech to 931 A.D. 13 of these men had enough power that no one could call into question their practice, they were unaccountable or no one dared approach them. Lamech Genesis 4:19; Abraham Genesis 16; Esau Genesis 26:34; 28:9; Jacob Genesis 29:30; Ashur 1 Chronicles 4:5; Gideon Judges 8:30; Elkanah 1 Samuel 1:2; David 1 Samuel 25:3944; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; Solomon 1 Kings 11:1-8; Rehoboam 2 Chronicles 11:18-23; Abijah 2 Chronicles 13:21; Jehoram 2 Chronicles 21:14; Joash 2 Chronicles 24:3; Ahab 2 Kings 10; Jehoiachin 2 Kings 24:15; Belshazzar Daniel 5:2; 1 Chronicles 2:8; Hosea in Hosea 3:1,2. Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record (Gen.29:15-30, Jacob and his wives.) Was Abraham, David Solomon condemned or approved for practicing polygamy? Well they certainly did not get blessed for it! The fact that every polygamist in the Bible like David and Solomon (1 Chron. 14:3) were punished. This should be evidence that this is not God’s will. God never condoned polygamy but like divorce he allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience. “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.” This is the command of God, and he has never changed it. (Deut. 17:1417) 1 Kings 11:3 says Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines violating the principle of monogamy that he was given through the law of Moses. Consider that Solomon at one time was the wisest man in the world. In I Kings 11:4: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Notice Solomon became a polytheist because he was influenced in polygamy. In his case many wives, became many gods. Scripture has always commanded monogamy (Ps.128:3; Prov. 5:18; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-29; Eccl. 9:9). The fact is that God never commanded polygamy or divorce. Scripture says (Bible) He only permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:8). Matt. 5:31-32: “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and 46


whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” God hates divorce as well as polygamy, since it destroys the family (Mal. 2:16). Whatever the patriarchs or any Christian did wrong does not change the fact the Bible condemns it. There are some stipulations in the law that are connected to this subject. Matt. 22:24: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.” This is based on the commandment found in Deut. 25:5-6: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. “And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. ” Multiple wives was tolerated but never with God's approval. Jesus told the Jews, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matthew 19:3-8). The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating, rather than removing, evils that were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed to the discouragement of polygamy; to prevent the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; to bring divorce under some restriction; and to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond. The Bible says adultery is not a choice, one does not have to acquire another wife to solve his urges. Jesus said if you look upon another woman with desire (married or not) it is adultery, a sin. Paul insisted that a leader in the church should be “the husband of one wife,” a deacon or elder must have one wife... Titus 1:6. The New Testament teaches that, “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Monogamous marriage teaches us the type of the relation Christ has between himself and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31-32). The church is called the bride, collectively as one (singular) each person is not a bride, as in plurality of wives and marriages. How many wives did Adam have in Gen.2:24? One, God did not take two wives out from his side. Monogamy has always been God's standard for the human race. From the very beginning God set the pattern by creating a monogamous marriage relationship -one man and one woman, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27; 2:21-25). It cannot be interpreted he became one with “each wife”; then this would mean he would be a husband to each, committing adultery. God certainly could have made two or more wives for Adam, this would have endorse the idea of polygamy, but he made only one. The Bible clearly and decidedly states that God does not condone or allow the practice of polygamy over and over again. (above 27)

47


Part 6 Time 5:40 – Ahmed Deedat says Christians are in favor of drinking because Jesus turned water into wine. Scripture has much to say regarding the drinking of alcohol (Leviticus 10:9; Numbers 6:3; Deuteronomy 29:6; Judges 13:4, 7, 14; Proverbs 20:1; 31:4; Isaiah 5:11, 22; 24:9; 28:7; 29:9; 56:12). However, Scripture does not necessarily forbid a Christian from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol. In fact, some Scriptures discuss alcohol in positive terms. Ecclesiastes 9:7 instructs, “Drink your wine with a merry heart.” Psalm 104:14-15 states that God gives wine “that makes glad the heart of men.” Amos 9:14 discusses drinking wine from your own vineyard as a sign of God’s blessing. Isaiah 55:1 encourages, “Yes, come buy wine and milk…” What God commands Christians regarding alcohol is to avoid drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18). The Bible condemns drunkenness and its effects (Proverbs 23:29-35). Christians are also commanded to not allow their bodies to be “mastered” by anything (1 Corinthians 6:12; 2 Peter 2:19). Drinking alcohol in excess is undeniably addictive. Scripture also forbids a Christian from doing anything that might offend other Christians or encourage them to sin against their conscience (1 Corinthians 8:9-13). In light of these principles, it would be extremely difficult for any Christian to say he is drinking alcohol in excess to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Jesus changed water into wine. It even seems that Jesus drank wine on occasion (John 2:1-11; Matthew 26:29). In New Testament times, the water was not very clean. Without modern sanitation, the water was often filled with bacteria, viruses, and all kinds of contaminants. The same is true in many thirdworld countries today. As a result, people often drank wine (or grape juice) because it was far less likely to be contaminated. In 1 Timothy 5:23, Paul was instructing Timothy to stop drinking the water (which was probably causing his stomach problems) and instead drink wine. In that day, wine was fermented (containing alcohol), but not necessarily to the degree it is today. It is incorrect to say that it was grape juice, but it is also incorrect to say that it was the same thing as the wine commonly used today. Again, Scripture does not forbid Christians from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol. Alcohol is not, in and of itself, tainted by sin. It is drunkenness and addiction to alcohol that a Christian must absolutely refrain from (Ephesians 5:18; 1 Corinthians 6:12). Alcohol, consumed in small quantities, is neither harmful nor addictive. In fact, some doctors advocate drinking small amounts of red wine for its health benefits, especially for the heart. Consumption of small quantities of alcohol is a matter of Christian freedom. Drunkenness and addiction are sin. However, due to the biblical concerns regarding alcohol and its effects, due to the easy temptation to consume alcohol in excess, and due to the possibility of causing offense and/or stumbling of others, it is usually best for a Christian to abstain entirely from drinking alcohol. (Above 28) 48

| Response: Muhammad in the Bible

Time 6:25 –Ahmed Deedat says Jesus addresses his mother as “woman” a title for prostitutes. Jesus never called Marry mother, always Woman When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."(John 2:3-5) In the ancient world, Woman was a title of respect (Antony is said to have called Cleopatra "Woman") and can be considered roughly equivalent to calling a modern noblewoman "Lady Diana." By calling his Mother "Woman," Jesus was showing Mary great respect and dignity. It is also possible that the term woman is meant recall us to the protoevangelium (the first Gospel) in the Book of Genesis: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel (Gen. 3:15).

Time 7:01 – Why have you kept the best wine for the last? Ahmed Deedat claims the point of this is to show how strong the alcoholic level was. 8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” hey did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.” (John 2:8-10) He pulled the bridegroom aside. This was no compliment. "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink. But you've saved the best till now. Why have you done this? This is not right. You've broken with our tradition. You've kind of messed up the feast here. What's going on here? " To understand this passage more fully, we must look at the larger picture. This simple story in chapter 2 is the beginning of a series of stories that ends with chapter 4. These stories have something a common. The have a common theme: Replacement. Old things have passed away, and the new has come. Jesus replaces the waters of Judaism, those purification pots they had for ceremonial washing, He replaces the water of Judaism with the wine of His blood. He replaces the temple of Judaism in the next story with His body. In the Nicodemus story, Jesus replaces the miracle of physical birth with a spiritual birth. And 49


in the story of the woman at the well, Jesus replaces Jacob with Himself and physical water with spiritual water, and worship at Jerusalem with spiritual worship. John, here, has a point. He is arguing for the superiority of faith in Jesus to all other ways of life and all other forms of religion. But we can go further. We must also look further than the book of John or even the New Testament. A number of items from the Old Testament can help us to understand this simple story. An abundance of wine, for example, was considered a characteristic of the future kingdom of God. There'll be an abundance of wine. The fact that Jesus produced much more wine than was needed in those huge pots is more than a coincidence. He produced an abundance of wine at that feast to bring people's minds back to these Old Testament prophecies. And the fact that John expressly mentions their great size could lead one to believe that he was pointing out how far the Jewish rituals for purification had gone. This story also reminds us, as it did them, of the transformation stories of the Old Testament. Moses turned water into blood as one of the plagues on ancient Egypt. Elisha transformed the bitter water of Jericho into water that was sweet to the taste and useful again. Speaking of Moses, there is no question that the comparison between Moses and Jesus is a major theme for the book of John. He is writing to the Jews who believe in Moses but not Jesus. He want them to say, 'Jesus has replaced Moses.' Moses and Jesus are major themes of the whole book of John. Moses is used by name as a comparison with Jesus several times. Jesus turned water to wine, Moses turned water to blood. Jesus gave a child life, Moses afflicted the domestic animals of Egypt with death. Jesus brought physical healing to the paralytic, while Moses afflicted the Egyptians with sores. Jesus calmed a storm, Moses created one. Jesus produced bread in the wilderness, Moses produced manna from Heaven and sent locusts to eat the bread of the Egyptians. Jesus brought light to the blind man, Moses brought darkness to Egypt. Moses slew the first born sons of Egypt, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Jesus was slain on the cross, Moses told the people to slay the Passover lamb. Some of these parallels may be a little tenuous, but there seems to be a clear intention on the part of John to show a pattern between the actions of Moses and the activities of Jesus. If you look at the other three Gospels, the pattern becomes even more clear. Like Moses, Jesus is threatened at birth by a king who ends up killing all the wrong babies but the one he really wants to destroy. Like Moses, Jesus came out of Egypt. Like Moses, Jesus saw the glory of God. Like Moses, Jesus fasted in the wilderness. Like Moses, He gave the law from the side of a mountain. Like Moses, He fed a multitude in the wilderness. Like Moses lifted up the bronze serpent, Jesus was lifted up on the cross. 50


With all of this in mind, and there could be much more, our simple story about a poor couple who run out of wine at their wedding feast, much to their embarrassment and to the embarrassment of others, and who are rescued by a noble Visitor with a miracle, suddenly has some serious theological implications. The main and most obvious theological point of this story is the role of wine as a symbol of the barrenness of Judaism without its Messiah. In the huge purification pots, John sees Judaism's obsessive concern for matters of relative unimportance. Could this be us? Could we put matters of small importance above matter that are of big importance? The accusation is plain and to the point: "They have no more wine." And when the good wine finally shows up, the head caterer doesn't even know where it came from. He even complains that they have not operated according to custom, in which the earlier is supposed to be better!(above 28)

Time 7:43 –“The Same Wine Lot drank and prohibited with his daughters” Ahmed Deedat compares the wine at the feast of Cara as if to say the bible condones the activities of Lot Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[a]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.( Genesis 19:30-38) Lot is a character from the Book of Genesis chapters 11-14 and 19, in the Hebrew Bible. Both Christians and Islam revere Lot as a righteous person of God. The Biblical stories of drunkenness and incest attributed to Lot are absent in the Qur'an. In Islamic tradition, they are rejected by Muslims and Lot is venerated as a Prophet of Islam.30

51


Deedat refers to the incident of Lot's daughters having sexual relations with their father. His conclusion is that the Bible is a filthy book, a bad example, and unworthy to be called the Word of God. Deedat's comments are wrong for the following reasons.

The Bible records what humans are like - and we are sinful. Lot and his daughters sinned and it is not wrong to record that this happened. The Bible is clear that Lot's actions are not an example for us to follow. No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. (Leviticus 18:6, NIV)

Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. (Leviticus 18:17, NIV)

However, for many Muslims there is another problem with what the Bible says. Muslims consider Lot to be a prophet and that prophets do not sin. Therefore to say that a prophet behaved this way is unacceptable. However, the Qur'an and Sunnah also record that the prophets sinned seriously. For instance, it says that Adam was the first idolater. It is He who created you out of one living soul (Adam), and made of him his spouse that he might rest in her. Then, when he covered her, she bore a light burden and passed by with it; but when it became heavy they cried to God their Lord, "If Thou givest us a righteous son, we indeed shall be of the thankful." Thereafter, when He gave them a righteous son, they assigned Him associates in that He had given them; but God is high exalted above that they associate. (Qur'an 7:189-190, Arberry)

Muhammad also sinned this way in the famous event of the Satanic Verses. One day when Muhammad was reciting Sura 53 he recited these words to his tribe: Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the exalted Gharaniq (a high flying bird) whose intercession is approved. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 165-166)

52


Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were some of the local idols worshiped in Mecca. Previously Muhammad had spoken against them in his monotheist preaching but now he recited that their "intercession is approved". When Muhammad's tribe heard what he had said they accepted him as a prophet. Then Gabriel came to the apostle and said, "What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what He did not say to you." (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 166) Then Muhammad confessed his sin. I ascribed to Allah, what He had not said. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1, p. 237) I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken. (AlTabari, The History of Al-Tabari, vol. vi, p. 111) Accepting polytheism and speaking false words in God's name is serious sin, and for a short period of time, while he was claiming to be a prophet, Muhammad did this. It is true that Muhammad confessed and repented, and this is to his credit, but this event still shows a very serious failing in his life. This event must not be ignored because it is inconvenient for it shows that all people are affected by sin. (Muhammad prayed) O Allah! Forgive my mistakes and my ignorance and my exceeding the limit (boundaries) of righteousness in my deeds; and forgive whatever You know better than I. O Allah! Forgive the wrong I have done jokingly or seriously, and forgive my accidental and intentional errors, all that is present in me. (Bukhari: vol. 8, bk. 75, no. 408, Khan) So know (O Muhammad) that there is no God save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and women (Qur'an 47:19, Pickthall) Therefore, the Qur'an and the Sunnah both agree with the Bible that even prophets sin. Deedat does not know the Qur'an or even the history of his own prophet. This is why the message of Jesus is so important because Jesus never sinned. God sent Jesus for this reason and he is our only hope.

Time 9:12 – Ahmed Deedat says God never Addressed Jesus as his Son. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”( Matthew 3:17)

53


Time 9:29 – Ahmed Deedat refutes people that say God spoke to them. He asks what language did they speak to you in? Rather than get into a long discussion about this I will just point out that in the 7th video part and 7:10 Ahmed Deedat says “Allow Allah to talk to you”. My question is what language would that be?

Part 7 ----------QUESTION AN ANSWER PERIOD ---------AHMED D EEDAT CONCLUDES HIS TALK AND NOW TAKES PRE-PREPARED QUESTIONS. HE ADDRESSES NEW POINTS NOT MENTIONED IN HIS TALK BUT FROM HIS DEBATE WITH JIMMY SWAGGART THE PREVIOUS NIGHT . SEVERAL OF THESE POINTS D IRECTLY ADDRESS THE CLAIMS OF M UHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE .

Part 8 Time 4:28 – Ahmed Deedat refers to another talk where he ‘proved’ the Bible is not the word of God. Since he doesn’t go into further detail on his arguments in this video I have nothing to comment on Bible not being Gods word. I dispute that claim and believe I could easily show his claims to be inaccurate.

Time 5:02 – Ahmed Deedat says there are 24000 manuscript copies of the Bible and that no 2 are the same so Christians make up whatever they want the Bible to say A biblical manuscript is any handwritten copy of a portion of the text of the Bible. The word Bible comes from the Greek biblios (book); manuscript comes from Latin manu (hand) and scriptum (written). The original manuscript (the original parchment the author physically wrote on) is called the "autographa." Biblical manuscripts vary in size from tiny scrolls containing individual verses of the Jewish scriptures to huge polyglot codices (multi-lingual books) containing both the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the New Testament, as well as extracanonical works. The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other "ancient" work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Ryland's manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Because there are more New Testament manuscripts than any other ancient writing (e.g., we only have 10 copies of Julius Caesar's 'The Gallic Wars'), Christian 54


apologists such as Josh Mcdowell and Norman Geisler assert that by literary standards, the New Testament is a reliable witness to the original text. Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek format are discovered. The latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in Albania; at least 17 of them unknown to Western scholars. When comparing one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely throughout. Note, however, that a single difference prevents agreement. There has been an estimate of between 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) which is more than there are words in the New Testament. This is less significant than may appear since it is a comparison across linguistic boundaries. More important estimates focus on comparing texts within languages. Those variations are considerably fewer. The vast majority of these are accidental errors made by scribes, and are easily identified as such: an omitted word, a duplicate line, a misspelling, a rearrangement of words. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated. Palaeography is the study of ancient writing, and textual criticism is the study of manuscripts in order to reconstruct a probable original text.31 Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand. Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history. The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original.32 The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: none of the original documents is extant, and the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original.[32] The New Testament has been preserved in three major manuscript traditions: the 4th-century-CE Alexandrian text-type; the Western text-type, also very early but prone to paraphrase and other corruptions; and the Byzantine text-type, which includes over 80% of all manuscripts, the majority comparatively very late in the tradition. Since the mid-19th century, eclecticism, in which there is no a priori bias to a single manuscript, has been the dominant method of editing the Greek text of the New Testament (currently, the United Bible Society, 4th ed. and Nestle-Aland, 27th ed.). In textual criticism, eclecticism is the practice of examining a wide number of text witnesses and selecting the variant that seems best. The result of the process is a text with readings drawn from many witnesses. In a purely eclectic approach, no single witness is theoretically favored. Instead, the critic forms opinions about individual witnesses, relying on both 55


external and internal evidence. Even so, the oldest manuscripts, being of the Alexandrian text-type, are the most favored, and the critical text has an Alexandrian disposition. Modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies.31

Time 5:43 – Ahmed Deedat Claims that Deuteronomy 18 is a referring to Mohammad 15"(P)The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16"This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.' 17"The LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. Deuteronomy 18 (15-18) Muslims argue that this prophecy could only have been fulfilled by Muhammad, who, like Moses, was a lawgiver, a prophet, and a military leader. Further, this Prophet was to come from the brethren of the Israelites, which must be a reference to the Ishmaelites (Muhammad’s purported ancestors), for Ishmael was the brother of Isaac, the father of Israel. These facts, along with other similarities between Muhammad and Moses, support the identification of "the Prophet" with Muhammad. If we were to take Deuteronomy 18:15 by itself, completely ignoring the rest of the book, we might have some reason to agree with the Muslim apologists on this issue. However, even a cursory examination of the context of this prophecy demonstrates the flaws in the Islamic position. First, the passage says that God will raise up a prophet like Moses, because the Israelites didn’t want to speak directly with God. The Israelites said, "Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God ... that I die not," and God replied, "They have well spoken that which they have spoken." Hence, when verse 18:15 is taken in context, we see that the Jews were asking for a mediator, someone to stand between them and God just as Moses did. The ultimate fulfillment of this passage would be someone who stands as a permanent mediator between God and man. While Muhammad could certainly be viewed as an intermediary of some sort, the passage seems to fit more comfortably if the Prophet is Jesus. At best, one could argue that Muhammad was a link in the chain of transmission from the Qur’an, from Allah, to Gabriel, to Muhammad, to mankind. But this doesn’t fulfill the prophecy. Muslims don’t believe in the sort of mediator required by Deuteronomy 18. In Christianity, however, Jesus is a permanent mediator: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Next, Moses says that God will raise up a prophet "from the midst of thee." Since he is talking to Israelites, it sounds as if God is telling them that he will raise up a prophet from the midst of Israel. In

56


any case, Muhammad surely wasn’t raised up from the midst of Jews. Jesus, on the other hand, was born and raised in Israel, so the context again fits more comfortably if Moses is referring to Jesus. Third, although Muslims often claim that the term "brethren" must refer to the Ishmaelites, the Book of Deuteronomy shows that this claim is completely false. To be sure, "brethren" can be used to refer to people other than the Jews, and it is used in this manner with the Edomites earlier in Deuteronomy (see 2:4). However, the term "brethren" is most commonly used when referring to other Israelites: If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother. (Deuteronomy 15:7) That this verse refers to fellow Israelites is clear from the verses that follow, for Moses tells his listeners not to ignore the brother just because the year for canceling debts is near (the year of debt-cancellation was meant for fellow Israelites). "Brethren" is also used regarding the selection of a king: When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. (Deuteronomy 17:14-15) The Jews obviously weren’t being commanded to seek an Arab king here. Rather, they were commanded to get a king "from among thy brethren," meaning a fellow Jew. The term "brethren" is even used as a reference to other Israelites in Deuteronomy 18, the same chapter from which the prophecy is taken: The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: They shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance. Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them. (Deuteronomy 18:1-2) The Levites were to have no inheritance among their brethren (the other tribes of Israel). This is how chapter 18 begins, and we’re never given so much as a hint that the meaning of "brethren" has changed so that, by verse 15, it refers to Ishmaelites. Given this repeated use of "brethren" to refer to Israelites, it is disturbing to read Muslim polemics which claim that "Ishmaelites" is the only possible interpretation of "brethren." Consider, for instance, what Deedat says about "brethren":

57


The children of Isaac are the brethren of the Ishmaelites. In like manner Muhammed is from among the brethren of the Israelites because he was a descendent of Ishmael the son of Abraham. This is exactly as the prophecy has it—"FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN". (Deut. 18:18). There the prophecy distinctly mentions that the coming prophet who would be like Moses, must arise NOT from the "children of Israel" or from "among themselves", but from among their brethren. MUHAMMAD THEREFORE WAS FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN! Contrary to what Deedat suggests, Moses’ prophecy doesn’t say that the prophet must not come from the children of Israel. Indeed, given the repeated use of "brethren" to refer to Israelites in Deuteronomy (especially in chapter 18), it is a wonder that anyone would interpret it otherwise. Deedat is therefore either completely ignorant of how "brethren" is used in Deuteronomy, or deliberately deceptive towards his Muslim readers (knowing that few of them will actually examine his absurd claim). Fourth, the conclusion of the Book of Deuteronomy tells us how we should interpret Moses’ phrase "like unto me": And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses. And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, in all the 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 in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel. (Deuteronomy 34:9-12) Here the phrase "like unto Moses" suggests a prophet who would speak with God face to face and perform signs and wonders "in the sight of all Israel." Muhammad doesn’t fit either of these criteria. He claimed to have received his revelations from Gabriel, not directly from God, and he admittedly could not perform miracles. Jesus, however, both performed miracles (as even the Qur’an acknowledges [Qur'an 3:49.]) and spoke directly with God: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. (John 5:19-20)

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lift up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. (John 8:28)

58


For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. (John 12:49)

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. (John 14:24) Finally, while Muslims appeal to Deuteronomy 18:15-19 as evidence for their prophet, they would do well to read the next verse, which, when combined with a certain embarrassing event from Muhammad’s life, turns out to be proof against the prophet of Islam. In Deuteronomy 18:20, God declares: But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. Here God gives us two criteria for recognizing a false prophet: (1) If a person delivers a revelation which doesn’t come from God, the person is a false prophet; and (2) if a person speaks in the name of other gods, the person is a false prophet. Interestingly, Muhammad meets both criteria, for he delivered the infamous "Satanic Verses" (i.e. verses he gave to his followers as part of the Qur’an but later claimed were inspired by Satan). Since these verses did not come from God, Muhammad meets the first criterion. And since the verses promoted polytheism, Muhammad meets the second criterion as well. Hence, the very passage that Muslims claim as their primary Biblical prophecy about Muhammad turns out to proclaim that Muhammad can’t be a prophet at all! (For a much fuller treatment of Deuteronomy 18:20 as evidence against Muhammad, see "The Deuteronomy Deductions.") True, Moses and Muhammad had some similarities. Nevertheless, when we examine the context in Deuteronomy, we find that these similarities count for little. Moses told the Israelites that God would send them another intercessor; in the New Testament, Jesus is the mediator between God and man. Moses told the Israelites that God would raise up a prophet from the midst of them; whereas Jesus was born in Israel, Muhammad was born in what is now Saudi Arabia. Moses told the Israelites that the prophet would come from among their "brethren," a term that is used over and over again to refer to their fellow Israelites; Jesus was a Jew, yet Muhammad was an Arab. Moses was known as a miracle worker who spoke directly to God; it is Jesus, not Muhammad, who was like Moses in these respects. On top of all this, Deuteronomy 18:20 rules out Muhammad as a prophet. (Above 33)

59


THE WORD OF GOD IN THE PROPHET'S MOUTH. Christians do not believe that the Qur'an is the Word of God but, purely for the sake of argument, we shall proceed as if God did indeed put his words in Muhammad's mouth to discover whether this might prove that Muhammad is the prophet referred to in Deuteronomy 18.18. In our view the statement "I will put my words in his mouth" does not help to identify the prophet referred to at all. It is true of every prophet that God has put his words in his mouth. For God said to Jeremiah:

"Behold I have put my words in your mouth".(Jeremiah 1.9 ) Furthermore we also read in Deuteronomy 18.18 that the prophet to follow Moses "shall speak to them all that I command him". Now we read that Jesus once said to his disciples:

"For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me".( John 12.49-50) A similar text which illustrates this point is found in the great prayer which Jesus prayed on the last night that he was with his disciples. He said: "I have given them the words which thou gavest me"(John 17.8) In no way, therefore, can the identity of the prophet in the text of Deuteronomy 18.18 be established from the fact that God would put his words in his mouth. With every prophet who is true this is the case and the great prophet referred to in the text, who would be uniquely like Moses in a way that none of the other prophets were, must accordingly be identified from other sources.10

Time 7:08 – No Jew say Isaiah claimed Divinity. They would have killed him if he did. Interestingly enough, this is exactly why Jesus was crucified because he was claiming to be God.

Time 8:08 – Ahmed Deedat Make the distinction that when Jesus says “I” he is referring to himself and not of God Jesus actually claimed to BE God. This means that when Jesus said “I say to you” those where words directly from God. You cannot miss that Jesus claimed to be God or that others saw him in this way.

60


The devil or demons calling Jesus Son of God

Matthew 4:3 Matthew 4:6 Luke 4:3 Luke 4:9 Mark 3:11 Luke 4:41 Matthew 8:29

Humans, including the New Testament writers, calling Jesus Son of God θεοῦ υἱὸς (theou huios) Matthew 14:33 Matthew 27:54 υἱὸς θεοῦ (huios theou) Mark 1:1 (of doubtful authenticity)[citation needed] Mark 15:39 Romans 1:4 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (ho huios tou theou)

John 1:34 John 1:49 John 11:27 John 20:31 Acts 9:20 Galatians 2:20 Hebrews 4:14 Hebrews 6:6 Hebrews 7:3 Hebrews 10:29 1 John 3:8 1 John 4:15 1 John 5:1 1 John 5:5 1 John 5:10 1 John 5:13 1 John 5:20 Revelation 2:18

61


τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸς (tou theou huios – equivalent to ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) 2 Corinthians 1:19

his (i.e. God's) son, in various forms, e.g. ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ (ho huios autou), equivalent to ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ

John 3:16 Romans 1:9 Romans 5:10 Romans 8:3 Romans 8:32 1 Corinthians 1:9 Galatians 4:4 Galatians 4:6 1 John 4:9 1 John 4:10 1 John 5:11

Attributed to Jesus himself ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (ho huios tou theou)

Matthew 26:63-64 Mark 14:61-62 (Jesus answers "I am" to the question.) Luke 22:70 John 5:25 John 10:36 John 11:4

Unclear whether attributed to Jesus himself or only a comment of the evangelist ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (ho huios tou theou) John 3:18 – with "μονογενής" (only-begotten) Jesus referred to as ὁ υιός (ho huios)

Matthew 11:27 Matthew 24:36 Matthew 28:19 Mark 13:22 Luke 10:22 John 1:18 John 3:35

62


John 5:19-26 John 6:40 John 14:13 John 17:1 1 John 2:22-24 1 John 4:14 2 John 1:9 (above 34)

Time 9:06 – Ahmed Deedat claims there are differences in words from God, words from prophets and History accounts. He claims all of these are include in the Bible and shouldn’t be. The Bible should only Word of God. Christians view EVERYTHING in the Bible as the words of God, written through human penmanship. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) What Deedat says about the Bible and the Qur'an is false. Consider the Qur'an first. The Qur'an - Deedat says that the Qur'an is the "type 1" witness. That is, it is where God says, "I" and "me", but this is false as any reader of the Qur'an knows. Consider these examples. In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God, Lord of the Universe, The Compassionate, the Merciful, Sovereign of the Day of Judgement! You alone we worship, and to You alone we turn for help. Guide us to the straight path, The path of those whom You have favoured, Not of those who have incurred Your wrath, Nor of those who have gone astray. (Qur'an 1, Dawood)

... Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget, or miss the mark! Our Lord! Lay not on us such a burden as thou didst lay on those before us! Our Lord! Impose not on us that which we have not the strength to bear! Pardon us, absolve us and have mercy on us, Thou, our Protector, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk. (Qur'an 2:286, Pickthall) 63


The whole first sura and 2:286 are prayers directed to God. There is no "I" or "me" of God speaking in them. By Deedat's own standard these are "type 2" witness, not "type 1". Consider another example. We descend only at the bidding of your Lord. To Him belongs what is before us and behind us, and all that lies between. Your Lord does not forget. He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. Worship Him, then and be patient in His service. (Qur'an 19:64-64, Dawood) Again we see there is no "I" or "me" of God speaking ("type 1"). Instead there are spirits or angels, "we", speaking about God, "him". This is the voice of the majority of the Qur'an. By Deedat's own standard this is a mixture of "type 2 & 3" witness, which according to him not the word of God. There are also several parts of the Qur'an in which it is Muhammad speaking. 'Serve you none but God' (I am to you a warner from Him and a bearer of good tidings) and: 'Ask forgiveness of your Lord, then repent to Him, and He will give you fair enjoyment unto a term stated, and He will give of His bounty to every man of grace. But if you should turn your backs I fear for you the chastisement of a mighty day; to God shall you return; He is powerful over everything.' (Qur'an 11:2-4, Arberry)

O my people, let not the breach with me move you, so that there smite you the like of what smote the people of Noah, or the people of Hood, or the people of Salih; and the people of Lot are not far away from you. And ask forgiveness of your Lord, then repent to Him; surely my Lord is All-compassionate, All-loving.' (Qur'an 11:89-90, Arberry)

I have only been commanded to serve the Lord of this territory which He has made sacred; to Him belongs everything. And I have been commanded to be of those that surrender. (Qur'an 27:91, Arberry) The Qur'an does have a small amount of "type 1" witness.

I created the jinn and mankind only that they might worship Me. I demand no livelihood of them, nor do I ask that they should feed Me. (Qur'an 51:57, 2:152, 7:183,Dawood)

64


Thus the Qur'an has many voices in it. It has the voice of the angels/spirits speaking about God, the voice of the Muslim community praying to God, the voice of Muhammad addressing his people and the voice of God speaking directly. It is not a "type 1" witness as Deedat claims. The Bible - Deedat mocks the Bible and calls it a "motley type of literature", and thus inferior to the Qur'an. It is true that the Bible has many types of literature. It is a collection of the writings of about 40 prophets and apostles over a 1500 year period. It has:

The Law of Moses The Psalms of David and others The Wisdom of Solomon: Proverbs Songs Prophecies Prayers Parables Genealogies Visions Angelic Explanations Prophetic History Gospels Apostolic Letters

God has inspired his word in many ways. In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways (Hebrews 1:1, NIV). God is not limited to one type of witness. He has inspired people with his word in many different ways. In fact a revelation from God must have many types of inspiration and witness for it to be complete. Consider the Bible, since it contains history, it provides all of its own context and chronology. This means that all of its commands, prophecies and the gospel can be understood in their proper context, which the Bible itself provides. The Bible is complete and the only essential book in Christianity. The Qur'an is very different. Muhammad spoke the Qur'an in response to different situations in his life, but what these situations were (the context) is not recorded in the Qur'an. It is essential to know this context in order to rightly understand and apply the Qur'an but this essential context comes from other books called the Hadith and Sira. The Qur'an also does not contain the Sunnah (practices of Muhammad). Yet the Sunnah is essential in Islam. How, when and what to pray, what to do on Hajj, circumcision, in fact most of the essential Islamic practices come from the Sunnah and this too comes from the Hadith and Sira.

65


Since the Qur'an does not contain its own context or the Sunnah, it is an incomplete book. The essential books of Islam are the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira and not the Qur'an alone. The essential book of Christianity is the Bible. Therefore it is wrong to compare the Bible to the Qur'an in the way that Deedat has. A fair comparison will compare the essential books of both religions (Above 34)

Time 11:30 - Ahmed Deedat claims no self respecting person can read Ezekiel 23 to their families. He asserts that this is pornography in the Bible It is only ignorance of the inspired scriptures that results in such outrageous claim. The whole chapter is describing the sin of idolatry of the two nations Samaria and Israel. The two nations became senseless and apathetic so that no amount of decent admonition would work with them. There was no amount of nice words that would cause them to recognize the gravity of their sin, the sin of idolatry. So the prophet had to use this language to make his point. Such strong language needed to be used to burn into their hearts and minds like acid the message of the prophet. Since the beginning of the nation of Israel they have been unfaithful to the God who delivered them out of the land of Egypt. At that "time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and held a celebration in honour of what their hands had made. ... This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: 'Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? You have lifted up the shrine of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship." (Acts 7:41-43) The children of Israel were violating the first and the most important commandment, which says, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them." (Exodus 20:2-4) Had Deedat taken the time to read the whole chapter he would have recognized the main message of the prophet Ezekiel. Here is the summary of that chapter:

"You shall pay the penalty for your lewd conduct and be punished for your idolatry, and you will know that I am the Lord God." (Ezek. 23:49) Had the prophet gone to them and preached against idol worship in more ordinary tones that would have had less effect. But he used the image of a harlot and sexual acts to portray the sordidness of the sin of worshipping idols. It is a language that makes people take note.

Strong imagery is not strange to the Qur'an either.

66


"And do not spy, neither backbite one another; would any of you like to eat the flesh of his brother dead?" (Q. 49:12) This is an image of cannibalism which is just as disgusting as harlotry or immoral sexual acts. If the Qur'an simply commanded people not to backbite, the message would not be nearly as powerful. But the revolting image of cannibalizing one's brother had to be used to communicate the vileness of backbiting. "God forgives not that aught should be with him associated; less than that He forgives." (Q. 4:48) And the Bible says about the sin of idolatery: "Long ago you broke off your yolk and tore off your bonds; you said, 'I will not serve you!' Indeed, on every high hill and under every spreading tree you lay down as a prostitute. I have planted you like a choice vine of sound and reliable stock. How then did you turn against me into a corrupt, wild vine? Although you wash yourself with soda and use an abundance of soap, the stain of your guilt is still before me,' declares the Sovereign Lord. How can you say, 'I am not defiled; I have not run after the Baals? See how you behaved in the valley; consider what you have done. You have a swift she-camel running here and there, a wild donkey accostomed to the desert, sniffing the wind in her craving - in her heat who can restrain her? Any males that pursue her need not tire themselves; at mating time they will find her. Do not run until your feet are bare and your throat is dry. But you said, it's no use I love foreign gods and I must go after them. As a thief is disgraced when he is caught, so the house of Israel is disgraced - they, their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets. They say to wood, 'You are my father', and to stone, 'You gave me birth.' They have turned their backs to me and not their faces; yet when they are in trouble, they say, 'Come and save us!' Where then are the gods you made for yourselves? Let them come if they can save you when you are in trouble! For you have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah. 'Why do you bring charges against me? You have rebelled against me,' declares the Lord. In vain I punished your people; they did not respond to correction. Your sword has devoured your prophets like a ravening lion." (Jeremiah 2:20-30) We can see that this was a method of communication to the children of Israel the sordidness of their sin of idol worship.

67


Deedat should have heeded the advice of the prophet of Islam when he said, "do not believe the people of the Book and do not disbelieve them" - "Why?" he was asked. "Because if you believe them and they were found to be wrong, you blaspheme. And if you disbelieve them and they were right, you blaspheme." According to the above Deedat by attacking the Bible has thus blasphemed. (Above 35)

Part 9 Time 1:10 – What is your concept of God. Mohammad answers (Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone. A Christian equivalent would be John 3:16-17: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Part 10 Time 0:08 – Ahmed Deedat says “it is your determination, your will, your faith that saved you. The Christian answers no it was Christ who saved me.” "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."(Romans 3:23) For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) The Bible teaches us the EXACT opposite of what Ahmet Deedat is saying here. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit(Titus 3:5) "Yet to all who received him (Jesus), to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."(John 1:12)

68


Time 3:18 – The text on the screen says “ If we had the finances we would flood the world with this magnificent book(referring to the Qur’an) Qur’an In 1936, translations in 102 languages were known. In 2010, the Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review reported that the Qur'an was presented in 112 languages at the 18th International Quran Exhibition in Tehran.36

Bible Bible translations, worldwide37 6,900 Approximate number of languages spoken in the world today 1,300 Number of translations to new languages currently in progress 1,185 Number of languages the New Testament has been translated to 451

Number of languages the Bible (Protestant Canon) has been translated to

My Question is, if the Qur’an was revieled only 600 years after the Bible, and Muslims are the most generous donators as Ahmedt claimed earlier, why are there so few translations conpaired to the Bible? Why have they reached so little of the world?

Part 11 Time 0:30 – Ahmed Deedat claims he has never met a Christian who knows the bible better than he does. While Ahmed Deedat may have memorized scripture in several different languages, his analysis of it shows he does not “know” it all at.

69


References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/a08islam/song5v16.html http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/can5.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua http://www.preceptaustin.org/matthew_722-23.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/muhammad.html http://www.gotquestions.org/Holy-Spirit-Ghost.html http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read1/r00303.html http://www.gotell.org/pdf/commentary/John/Jn16_12-15_commentary.pdf http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/muhammad.html http://www.truthnet.org/Holy-Spirit/3HolySpirit-Revelation/Index.htm http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-commentary-1-john-41-6 http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/prophethood_test.html http://www.bible-truth.org/JohnChapter3.html http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2105.htm http://www.gotquestions.org/denominations-Christian.html http://ypguybrit.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/o-you-of-little-faith/ http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=016 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_comparison http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html http://www.gotquestions.org/AIDS-HIV.html http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-alcohol.html http://mcdonaldroad.org/sermons/01/0217kc.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_(biblical_person) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/muhammad_in_bible.htm http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/deedat.htm#grades http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/ez23.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Bible_versions_and_translations

*DISCLAIMER* I do not claim to have written all the above text in this document but compiled many sources to answer the claims of Ahmed Deedat as best as possible. The credit goes to those who personally wrote the material cited within this document. Many thanks to everyone and God Bless!

70
