Ahh, yes springtime again in Minnesota. Although the extended weather forecast doesn’t sound all that great, there were still a few opportunities this week to get outside and do some yard work or clean out the garage. You know what else that means, right? Well with spring and Easter almost here, you might get some nicely dressed folks from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses’) knocking on your door inviting you to their Easter service. Sad to see what they’ll do for a lie, but you have to admire them for their persistence.
In this blog, I want to give you some tips and pointers on how to engage these folks when they come to your door. But before I do that, I think you should be forewarned that most Christians are not usually equipped to engage these folks in a theological battle. It has been rightly stated that a Jehovah’s Witness can turn the average Christian into a doctrinal pretzel in about thirty seconds flat—and I agree. So one thing we have to remember when we’re engaging these folks is, they’ve heard most of our arguments repeatedly and are well equipped to quickly answer back and “seemingly” refute them. With that being said, remember, the Jehovah’s Witnesses only have a handful of arguments and responses at their disposal that they are trained to respond with (it’s like a script). So one could say that they play on a small track and field, but once you take them outside of that track or their comfort zone they are usually lost and stumbling for comebacks. Now that’s not what we’re trying to do when we engage them, rather we’re trying to demonstrate their faulty arguments and win them to the true Jesus Christ. So what do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and why are they considered a cult or deviation of the historic Christian faith? For starters, they are adherents of an ancient heresy called Arianism. This was first proposed at the Council of Nicea by a man named Arius from Alexandria, Egypt. Based on Arius’ interpretation of Scripture he posited that Jesus is the begotten Son of God in the sense that He did not exist infinitely, and that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. This is a very basic definition of the Arian heresy. Fast-forward to the mid 1800’s during a time of religious confusion where new denominations were springing up almost daily in the United States; and a wild preacher by the name of Charles Taze Russell (an end times guru) picked up on this ancient heresy and ran with it, and the Watchtower was born out of that. Russell denied the Trinity, eternal hell and of course the deity of Jesus. He had more theological hang ups than a dry cleaner. So he started the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and gained popularity with his obsession of end times and predicting on a variety of occasions the end of the world, but missed it every time. That’s a readers digest version of this cult. So the next time your door bell rings and two JW’s are standing there—invite them in! I’ve said this before, but there’s no better opportunity to evangelize than someone knocking on your door asking to talk about Jesus. Now when you answer and invite them in let them know that you are a Christian and that Jesus is your savior. They are going to proceed to tell you Jesus is not God and demonstrate from their New World Translation of the Bible, which is NOT a translation, rather it’s a gross mis-translation that Jesus is a created being. Remember though, they are ready for you to bring them to places like John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 and Philippians 2, to demonstrate Jesus’s divinity and then refute you. They have also tampered with a few of those texts to diminish the deity of Jesus. Here are two very important things you can do to throw them off their game plan and get them thinking, because that’s what you want to do is get them to question what they believe—create doubt. First of all, always, and I mean always let them read the passage to you. Your Bible in their mind has been corrupted. So take them to a specific passage and let them read it out loud to you. Second, when they have read the passage, ask them the context and who the writer is talking about. This allows them to back themselves into a corner, not you. Okay, now let’s bring them to a few passages and see what happens. Begin with a question. Was Jesus begotten? The JW’s love this because they put a totally different spin on begotten. They completely miss what begotten means and say that begotten means Jesus is finite and created. Kindly take them to the Old Testament—what a great place to start. Psalm 2:7-9 says, I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.” Ask your new friends who this passage is talking about. Jesus of course, and this passage seems to prove the JW’s point namely that Jesus was begotten! However, in the unlikely event they say David--tell them to hang on. What’s really fascinating is this passage gets revisited several times in the New Testament: Romans 1:4, Acts 13:30-33, and Hebrews 1:5. Here is a really important theological point to demonstrate what’s going on with “Today I have begotten you.” What is begotten? Have them now read Romans 1:1-4. “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord . Declared to be the Son of God and Messiah at the resurrection! That’s amazing, isn’t it? Hold on, I thought Jesus was born the Messiah? He was. I thought He did the works of the Messiah? He did. I thought He died as the Messiah? He did. But at His resurrection something final and has definitive occurred. At this point they might sense a trap. Now look at Acts 13:30-33. Paul and Barnabas are in Pisidia Antioch preaching the gospel and this is the end of the sermon with Paul’s big finish. “But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people. 32 “We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors 33 he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:” You are my son; today I have become your father.” Interesting, language, begotten must mean something different like prime position or preeminence. So Jehovah’s Witnesses miss the Messianic language, and they read begotten to mean His nature. The second passage we’ll briefly discuss is a great early first century creedal statement or hymn found in Philippians 2:6-11 says, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” There’s a lot that could be said here, but we simply want to demonstrate the deity of Jesus. The important part of this text is the last part where Paul quotes from the prophet Isaiah. Now remember, you DO NOT read this or contextualize this—let them. After they have read this, have them turn to Isaiah 45 and have them start reading in verse from verse 18-24. Isaiah 45:18 For this is what the Lord says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited--he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. Now ask them if this is Jehovah speaking? Have them continue reading to verse 23 "By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. Now notice that verse 23 has been used by Paul in Philippians 2 to demonstrate Jesus is Jehovah. These are just a few of the arguments you can add to your apologetic tool kit to do spiritual battle with JW's. I hoped you enjoyed these useful nuggets and stay tuned for my audio video series on Jehovah’s Witnesses. God bless and happy Easter!
0 Comments
I recently saw in the news a "transgender boy" (really a girl) from Texas, win the State High School girl's wrestling tournament for a second straight year--undefeated. Mack Beggs, a female who is in the process of making the transition to male seems to whip other girls in her sport, mainly because "she" is taking low doses of testosterone (essentially steroids) which in turn give her a distinct advantage over other girls. Now to Beggs' defense, she has requested to wrestle with boys, however, the State of Texas has barred her from doing so on the basis that the law requires a person who participates in High School athletic events to do so with those of the gender given to them on their birth certificates (seems logical). But with each passing day, we are seeing the distinction between male and female lines being blurred; and what's interesting is, the rapidity of how fast people are embracing this type behavior. Of course one need not look very far into our nations past and recognize its recent acceptance of homosexual behavior as normal. I remember in the mid-nineties, homosexuality and the embracing of it was a minority position in our country. However, fast forward a decade to the 2008 Presidential primaries between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. At Saddleback Church, each Senator was asked about their position on marriage, and both explicitly agreed that the marriage union was reserved for a male and a female--which was great. My how fast things can change. In 2010, just two years later, President Obama's views began to evolve. In an interview Obama said, "I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents.” Sadly, just two more short years later, President Obama became the first President to support same-sex marriage.
Of course the same sex marriage debate is over as far as legalization and its recognition as normal behavior--at least by our government. So naturally the transgender movement has tried to replicate and follow the same strategy as the homosexual movement with media, politics, educational systems and companies to help create the understanding that this too is normal behavior. So transgenderism is the newest frontier that Christian's are faced with. So how do we face the transgender issue? Starting from a theological perspective, if one agrees that God is the creator of humanity and knit us together in our mothers wombs; then for us to try and change or alter our physiology would be greatly mistaken, because that would mean that God was wrong when He created some of us. Essentially, you are conceding that even though God created you and loves you, He assigned you with specific physiological parts that are wrong. Could it be that perhaps we are wrong? Even the distinguished Professor of Psychiatry Paul R. McHugh of John Hopkins who has been studying transgender people for over forty years says that transgenderism, “should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.” In fact, he goes on to say gender dysophria, “belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psycho-social conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.” To underscore this and put it bluntly, no one in their right mind would go to a surgical physician and tell them to remove their left hand because they don't feel it belongs there even though it is totally functional. No physician would allow for it; yet when someone decides they no longer want to identify as a male or female, it then becomes perfectly legitimate to eradicate parts of their body. I recently read an article about a good looking female who complained to a counselor that she was a man trapped in a woman's body and that she was born that way. And during this identity crisis, she underwent the procedure to have her genitalia removed thus becoming a male. However, some years later she was saved at a Christian Crusade and deeply wanted to reverse what had been done, but couldn't. She asked questions like, does God still love me? What about my partner? What about my co-workers? Unfortunately, we cannot unscramble the egg, however, that doesn't mean that God is unwilling to forgive us. God is more than willing to forgive anyone of any sin, no matter how grievous it is. But my whole point in bringing up that story about this woman who sought to become a man was, like homosexuality, transgenderism seeks to convince society that they are "born that way" that this is their "identity", but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Your sexuality is a choice whether you are gay, straight, bisexual or transsexual. In other words, as a married heterosexual man, I have a "choice" to engage in sexual behavior, I don't have to--I can chose to refrain. The same is true for someone with transgender proclivities, they do not have to engage in that type of behavior because there is a choice. What disturbs me the most about the LGBTQ agenda is that even though their positions can be demonstrated to be false, they resort to discrimination, inclusiveness or intolerance rather than logic and sound arguments. For example, often times those who oppose this view are seen as racists a very pejorative word that is decidedly untrue. When African-Americans were discriminated against, it was because of their color or "identity" something they could not change. But again, the transgender person has a "choice", so it's nothing to do with race or identity as some would lead us to believe. Secondly, those that are not tolerant to LGBTQ positions are seen as intolerant bigots, but why? Their claim is that I am intolerant while they are tolerant, but aren't they being intolerant by telling me I am not tolerant. And finally, inclusiveness or accepting of all, unless of course you disagree with them, then you are vilified and seen as a bigot. Yes, there is an agenda at work here. PayPal founder Peter Thiel said, “When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union. And we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom." Why is keeping men out of women's bathrooms even talked about! Why is it than when a state wants to stop men from entering the ladies bathroom that corporate America or the NBA get involved and boycott. What is wrong with America? The land of confusion. Most people today don’t take the time to ask, why are there so many denominations within Christendom? And to be quite candid, I don’t think most people in today’s world really care; but why is that? In fact, I’ll take that a step further and say that most people that identify with a specific denomination don’t have the foggiest idea of what their denominations theological tenants are. If that’s you, then maybe you should ask your pastor or do some digging.
So in this little piece, I want to vent a bit about “denominations” and tell you who I most closely align with, and why—you’ll be surprised. But before we do that let’s talk a little history. Did you know that for roughly the first thousand years the Catholic church stood unified as one. Think about that for a second or two, for one thousand years the Church had substantially the same shape from place to place. The Church stood on the creedal statements from the past and was able to withstand many attacks from without and within. But something tragic happened. In the years leading up the Great Schism there were both political and doctrinal issues that were taking shape. Ultimately, it boiled down to two issues (1) should one man, the Pope, be the sole leader of the Catholic Church and (2) should the phrase filioque be added to the Church’s creed? Now if we travel back to the first century, there is no doubt that there existed a hierarchy within the Church as Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and later Rome. And no one challenged this role. However, as the centuries passed, Rome began to appoint Pope’s, but bishops remained equal. You can only guess what happened next, the bishops began to assume more authoritative roles—without consensus. Needless to say, these men claimed to be the only sole successors of Saint Peter which was rejected by most other bishops. There was also an addition to the Nicean Creed (325 A.D.) which lead to a massive disagreement. In a very short succinct statement, a church council in Spain changed the Creed’s position of John 15:26 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone to the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and “the Son”. While it was initially rejected, it was nonetheless changed by the Pope in Rome without an ecumenical council. While this may seem like nonsense to us, it was catastrophic tearing the Church apart from the West being catholic to the East being orthodox. Obviously much more could be said, but things quickly spun out of control as Roman papacy asserted authoritative control over the entire church. The next great schism, if you will, was with a German monk by the name of Martin Luther. It’s very important to understand first and foremost that Luther NEVER intended to break away from the Catholic Church, he only sought reform. Of course after requesting several times to meet with the Pope but being denied; in 1521 Luther was officially excommunicated from the church as a heretic. This then lead to the Reformation penetrating every nook and cranny of the Roman Church; leading to a loss of power in the Catholic Church. So slowly but surely decade after decade more and more denominations began to spring up. In fact, it got so bad that people began to not even identify as Catholic or Protestant. There was such as distaste for Rome that many sought to completely distance themselves from central traditions of worship. Of course some held on to the traditions like Lutherans and Anglicans, but there were radicals like Anabaptists that rejected: liturgy, hierarchy, traditions and sacraments. To this very day, if we’re honest with ourselves, most of us REJECT traditions because we deem them to be “too Catholic”, right. So in all this zeal, and the reformers trying to regain purity, Protestantism overreacted without even realizing it—again even to this day. This is as plain as the nose on my face, just tune into any Reformed teacher today and they will completely and utterly distance themselves from any traditions. So on one hand you had Rome adding to the faith i.e. the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary (saying Mary was without sin 1854). But on the flipside, you had Protestants subtracting from it. For example, Mary is a no name in Protestantism, church discipline (non-existent), and Scripture a matter of personal interpretation constantly up for renegotiation. Think about this for a second, name one single Protestant denomination that has fully held onto the faith of their founders. So where do I align in all this? Well, I’m still searching, but I happen to gravitate towards the Eastern Orthodox Church as the Church universal. Maybe you’re saying, why can’t we just believe in the Bible, and we don’t need traditions or a Church universal? Well, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ carrying their Bibles around believe in the Bible too. Mormon’s run around saying the church was corrupted and lost not long after the Apostles; so I see tradition as being of utmost importance. I really believe that the perspicuity of Scripture is somewhat false, just look at the wild interpretations you see on a regular basis. Yes, the Holy Spirit can lead us along and teach us, but we need the traditions and great ecumenical councils that have gone before us to shed light on those chapters and verses we read. You see, without tradition you and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are in a dead heat, it’s your interpretation verses theirs because there is no tradition or foundation to stand on—just your belief. Whereas if we have great traditions that have stood the test of time, we can use them as guardians of the truth. Perhaps this is a better way to understand our need for tradition. Suppose the speed limit is thirty-five, and the city council set it to that speed, but you’re doing fifty and get pulled over. Is it the city that pulls you over or an officer? The officer is the one who enforces the statutes. In the same way, traditions have been faithfully passed down and preserved, so there must be an enforcer or someone there to preserve it so bad interpretations don’t worm their way into the church. One last thing, when error crept into the early Church, who were the first people there to put things back in order—the Apostles. The Apostles and the great councils after them are here to protect and preserve the Word of God. How could Jesus have been wrong? Scripture clearly articulates that Jesus is God incarnate (God in the flesh) and that He possesses certain divine attributes such as omniscience, (infinite wisdom and knowledge) so how could He have been wrong about the Parousia (the second coming)?
David Allison wrote a book called, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. This work by Allison is essentially a follow up or updated version of Albert Schweitzer’s work, The Quest for the Historical Jesus. Essentially, Allison sets out to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic preacher that went around the countryside telling any that would listen that the end of the world and the Kingdom of God would come in His lifetime—but He was wrong, because it never materialized! Now this can be a potentially serious argument leveled against the believer in that Jesus was either ignorant of the future or was a false apocalyptic preacher. This argument has even caused some to altogether abandon the faith or in the case of different religions to argue against the omniscience of Jesus as God. With regard to those who once held the Christian faith only to later walk away, are in my view, guilty of poor exegesis and allowing doubt to get the best of them while completely blowing this out of proportion. In a sense, it’s like holding your thumb up to an enormous building and saying, my thumb is bigger than the building—when it obviously isn’t. Often times, people that do things like that completely neglect the overwhelming evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, His miracles and the evidence as a whole. So was Jesus really wrong about the Parousia? Not at all. Some scholars have suggested that because of the incarnation, Jesus, in His humanity was mistaken to which I disagree. But this does raise a valid point in that Christians are often times guilty of forgetting that while, yes, Jesus is truly God, He was also truly man. We usually have a very lopsided view of Jesus focusing in only on His deity, all the while forgetting Jesus was tired, hungry, emotional, thirsty and so on. So in the gospel of Mark when Jesus is asked about the day or hour of His coming, He responds by saying no one knows when this will happen not even the angels or the Son Himself (Mark 13:32). Now, different theologians have responded differently to this asking, what is meant by the meaning of “coming”. New Testament scholar NT Wright seems to believe Jesus when using “coming” in this context is not referring to the Parousia rather, Jesus is referring to the destruction of the second temple. So “coming” here means coming in judgment not coming in the second return. I happen to agree with Wright here in that Jesus is not referring to the Parousia but to the temple and its destruction because of the context of Mark 13 as a whole. I say that because Jesus, in His humanity, didn’t know the exact day or time when this would take place. For example, Jesus says, “Pray that your flight doesn’t take place in the winter (Mark 13:18). This is important because the temple was destroyed in the summer not winter signaling that while Jesus knew it would happen within His generation, He didn’t know the exact timing. So this passage is not very troubling in my theological construct. Even if one doesn’t hold that position there are several texts demonstrating that Jesus thought the Parousia to be delayed well beyond His earthly ministry. For example, Jesus talks about the Bridegroom being gone past midnight and returning after most were sleeping or forgot. Also, a man who goes away to a far country giving the estate over to his tenants. One of those left in charge thinks, being my master is slow in returning, I will beat the others and treat them with disrespect. Mark Twain once famously said, “it isn’t those hard parts of the Bible I can’t understand that bother me, it’s the parts I do understand”. Isn’t that the truth. Often times while reading the gospels, especially, when I’ve come to plain meaning of things, I am most perplexed. Let’s see if we can reconcile some of these other passages dealing with Jesus’s so-called inability to get things right about the Parousia. “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power”--Mark 9:1 This passage is preserved in the Synoptic tradition (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and creates doubt for the reader in that this never happened—or did it? I once struggled with this text thinking that Jesus was flat out wrong here. This was until I did some research and return. In Craig Blomberg’s work Jesus and the Gospels, Blomberg gives a brief treatment to this so-called conundrum. I say brief, because one need not dedicate much ink to answering this, because in all three gospels that share this story, it is immediately proceeded by Jesus’s transfiguration with Peter, James and John where Jesus appears in dazzling glory. A second passage which is a bit more difficult is found in Matthew 10:23 where Jesus says, “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” One could simply answer this question by asking, did the disciples do this? Were they able to get through the towns Israel before the “coming”? Not if Jerusalem and the surrounding communities were destroyed in 70 A.D. You see the destruction of Jerusalem wasn’t all that was destroyed by Titus and the Romans. Josephus says, many of the towns lay desolate and destroyed in the wake of the Jewish War. So it is true that the disciples didn’t get through the cities of Israel before “coming” of the Son of Man. Again, if that position isn’t satisfying, the gospel writers seem to be unalarmed by this and keep on telling the story of their return back to Jesus. There is plenty of evidence to support the notion that Jesus was NOT mistaken about His return based on the evidence provided. There are many authors that have treated this topic and the believer can hold their head high that Jesus is on the throne and will return. b There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. The love for Muhammad runs deep for any Muslim. The famous Muslim philosopher Muhammad-Iqbal once said, “You can deny Allah, but you cannot deny the prophet”. Muhammad Al-Ghazali, who is widely regarded as the most influential Muslim in the world other than the prophet himself said, “the key to happiness is to imitate the messenger (Muhammad) himself in all his coming and going, his movements and rest, his way of eating, his attitude, his sleeping and his talk”. Essentially, one cannot begin to understand or comprehend Islam apart from Muhammad. It is even affirmed by Muslims that Muhammad comes from noble birth, perfect intellect, a model of humility and the greatest of all prophets—even greater than Moses! As we explore the greatest threat to Christianity and the church, we must first begin with its origins and founder.
Muhammad was born in Mecca some five hundred years after Jesus and died at the age of sixty-two in Medina (632 A.D.). Both of Muhammad’s parents died when he was very young—his father first, then his mother. At the age of nine he was sent to live with his uncle Abu Talib. After the passing of his uncle, Muhammad began working for a wealthy woman named, Khadija—who would later become his wife. Not much else is really known about Muhammad’s religious beliefs until the age of forty. According to Islamic sources, it was while he was in a cave on Mount Hira where he was suddenly seized by a mysterious presence that began to grip him around his throat. The force began to grip him so hard, Muhammad feared for his life. Then the being said, “Read!” To which Muhammad responded, I cannot read. Twice more this happened until a third time when the being squeezed so hard Muhammad feared death. This time Muhammad submitted. Needless to say, Muhammad survived, but he began to have thoughts of suicide, fearing this was not divine—but demonic. However, after explaining this dreadful event to his then wife, Khadija; she later convinced Muhammad this was not demonic rather it was divine and Muhammad needed to be obedient. Choosing to listen to Khadija changed the trajectory of history. So for the next twenty years, Muhammad would begin winning over converts—the process started slow, but soon gained traction. There were other Muslim traditions claiming different visits from Gabriel. One source says Muhammad, at the age of five, while laying prostrate in the desert, had his chest slashed open from throat to stomach. His heart was removed by the angel and a black clot was scrubbed from it. The third encounter, later in his life, his heart was again removed and placed on a golden bowl where it was cleansed with water. Many more stories about Muhammad could be told, but what caused this religion to explode into the colossus it is today. When Muhammad first started preaching, it was done in a peaceful manner, however, as the movement grew, he began to become more vocal and brave. Ibn Ishaq said, the Meccans “had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow; he had declared their way of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, and crushed their gods.” In the next ten years, (622-632) Muhammad brought forth more than curses. It is said that he moved from a war of words and insults to war with weapons. When you meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks. --Quran 47:4 It is often said that there were two Muhammad’s, the Muhammad of Mecca and the Muhammad of Medina. With new revelation from Allah, Muhammad and his followers began the practice of raiding caravans. During the first few raids he didn’t fare so well. In fact, they didn’t have any victory until their seventh try. This time, however, the first recorded Muslim murder was recorded and they took the spoils of victory. Both Jewish and Arab tribes were appalled he would do such a thing. Soon thereafter, the battle of Battle of Badr took place. Muslims view this as a major event in history believing that divine intervention and the assistance of angels helped them succeed in victory when they were outnumbered three to one. With the spoils from this victory, they were to give a fifth to Allah and to his messenger (Muhammad) Quran 8:41. The day after the battle of Badr, while in Medina, Muhammad sneered as the severed head of Jahl was thrown before him. This beheading would become a signature of Islamic terror from that day on. “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.” –Quran 8:12 Islamic terror manifests itself in many ways, but Muhammad wasn’t always successful. In fact, in the battle of Mount Uhud, Muhammad was struck down with a sword—rocking the battlefield. But Muhammad was rescued, brought to safety and later recovered. More victories would later ensue, and as victories and wealth grew, so too did Muhammad accumulate wives. Muhammad would later marry Aisha at the young age of six and consummate it age nine. Muhammad even married his step son’s wife, Zaynab. Even Islam’s Women said, “Arabs thought it wrong for a man to marry the widow or divorcee of his adopted son. Allah wanted to abolish this uncivilized custom, so he sent Gabriel to tell the prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) in secret that Zaynab would one day be his wife.” So Allah made the decision to allow Zaynab to divorce and marry Muhammad. Most people only know of Hitler’s Jewish Holocaust, not true. When Muhammad left Medina Jewish tribes there began to thrive, but five years later these tribes were eradicated. Two of these three tribes escaped from Muhammad, however, the last tribe of Qurayzah and the murder of them will forever live in infamy. Thoroughly Muslim sources affirm this account. After Muhammad designated these Jews as “brothers of monkeys”, Allah began to cast terror in their hearts. First, the women and children were sold into slavery, then Muhammad had trenches dug for the men. He had their heads struck off in batches. Ibn Ishaq, went on to say the number of Jews slaughtered were 600-700. This is but a thumbnail sketch of the many horrific things that happened. Today, many Muslim’s are very polite and peaceful people, but as noted above, Islam demonstrates itself to not be a religion of peace. Yet, somehow in the Western world, Islam is proclaimed as a religion of peace! In 2015 after the terrorist attack in France, Hillary Clinton said, “Islam is not our adversary”. Similarly, George W. Bush said the teachings of Islam are, “good and peaceful”. Barak Obama said that Muslims worldwide “share common principles—principles of justice and progress, tolerance and dignity for ALL human beings”. The list of Western conservatives and liberals and their acceptance of Islam as peaceful and tolerant could go on and on. So is Islam really peaceful and tolerant? By definition the word Islam means, “submission” (to the will of Allah). But why would Muhammad and the Quran then instruct its devotees to fight “the People of the Book” Christians until the agree to pay jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued Quran 9:29? Clearly, the submission Allah prescribed was meant for Christians to surrender to the point of death! It should be noted that the Islamic attacks were never done in self-defense either rather, because of alleged false views held by Christians. Again, there are plenty of peaceful Muslim’s in the world, but the Quran teaches something quite different. One of the reasons Islam and Quran are not discussed in the public sphere today is because of fear. Think of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri for rejecting the Islamic subjugation of women. Two hundred years earlier, Muslim hordes massacred Monks in the Mesopotamian monasteries. In India Muslim shah Jahan the builder of the Taj Mahal, murdered thousands near Calcutta and offered thousands more if they wouldn’t convert. Historian, Serge Trifovic said, “The massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history”. In considering whether Islam is a threat think of the Ottoman Empire and the complete and utter annihilation of the Armenians and death of Christianity in Asia Minor (Turkey). When WWI broke out, the Muslim leadership of Turkey had its sights set on eradicating Christianity from the land. The ethnic cleansing of nearly half a million Christians. The conquering Turks in Smyrna went from house to house, murdering, raping and looting until most Christian had been exterminated. The carnage didn’t stop there as Bishop Chrysostomos was turned over to a Muslim mob where they first gouged his eyes out and dragged him through the streets by his beard. Every now and then he would raise his hand and bless the persecutors, repeating, “Father forgive them”. One Turk grew so mad at this that he cut his hands off with his sword. As Chrysostomos fell to the ground, he was hacked to pieces. Some Armenians were cut to pieces while still breathing. Some dowsed in oil and burned alive, and some were buried alive. Remember in 2015 when a French Priest Jacques Hamel was brutally beheaded while dispensing the body and blood of Christ. “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve”--Quran 8:12. Something alarming has been going on as of late that Westerners are now just waking up to. Not only has Islam advanced by the sword, but now it advances by way of migration without assimilation. The late Libyan leader Mu’ammar Gadhafi once said, “Allah will grant Islam victories in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim nation in a matter of decades”. Gadhafi went on to say, “They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time or else declare war on Muslims.” In the near future there will be one hundred million Muslims in Europe. Any civilization that becomes Islamic demographically will inevitably take on Islamic political policies (think of Turkey). This begs the question, are the attacks we see today a product of a hijacked religion? How do Christians respond to Islam? Many times Muslims will also argue the great atrocities committed by Christians. But is there any warrant to that claim? Not at all! While it is true that some Christians do horrendous things in the name of Christianity, they are never prescribed by its founder, Jesus of Nazareth. The message proclaimed by Jesus is a message of peace. The message of Jesus is not to fight with the sword, rather to love your neighbor as yourself. Christian’s are commanded by Jesus to love their enemies. Islam when relegated to its most rudimentary form, proclaims a message far different than that of Christianity. “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” Quran 9:5 So again, while there is a moderate voice in Islam against violence, when the Quran is read and understood at its most basic level, it commands all to convert, however, the punishment for not converting is death and hell. |
|