CAN THE BIBLE AND THE KORAN BOTH BE TRUE?
Since the birth of the ecumenical movement in the 1960s, which had long been a subtle Jesuit inspired concept, in which the Vatican would subliminally control all of the world's false religions, resulting in the infamous 'one-world religious movement' taking ground, which was in all essence man's final rebellion against God, resembling an even cruder and bolder attempt to recreate the ungodly Tower of Babel incident, from Genesis 11, the true Church of God has been able to accelerate forward and use this apostasy and open conspiracy to further the true Gospel of the blessed Lord Jesus Christ.
With most of the world's false religions, unsaved politicians and so-called 'Christendom' galloping into the stables of Rome, to be openly initiated into this greater and final amalgamation, with the marrying up of one another's false beliefs and man-made doctrines, this article will therefore investigate the spurious claim made by some ignorant people today, how all of the world's religions, are in essence 'true,' but due to man's 'inability' or 'disability' to comprehend this, they are actually ignorant of this and as such, are outside of His will.
In fact to make such a claim is actually impossible, for whilst all of the world's religions could be false, they most certainly cannot all be true. For the laws of logical are transcultural. But for the purpose of saving time, I will expose this preposterous and outrageous claim, by focusing primarily on how Islam and Christianity are allegedly 'both the same,' which continues to be meddled and purported by liberals and apostates.
By the time one finishes reading this article, one will be left with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, how Islam and Christianity are totally different, and as such, cannot possibly share the same goals, purposes, and above all, even the same God!
To be as fair and as honest as is possible, I have quoted Islamic writers (not Christians) to demonstrate what they teach, and as a result, how they have totally misunderstood the very basic tenants of Biblical Christianity.
I would also like to add for the record, that in all of my experience over the years of speaking and witnessing to Muslims, the bulk of the material that is cited below, is corporately accepted and agreed on as being 'correct' by the majority of Sunni and Shiites.
The following sources, therefore are taken from official Islamic publications, concerning what Muslims actually believe about the Trinity of God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and other areas of theology and Church history.
The Apostle Paul
In their first publication they make the false claim about the Apostle Paul and then they go onto err in other areas too: "A charismatic speaker who had never meet Jesus, and had persecuted many Christians before his sudden conversion. Under his leadership, Pauline Christians [those that accept his epistles] directed their conversion efforts towards non-Jews and devolved a theology foreign to the Old Testament, including belief in a Trinity (which had been prevalent among the Romans, Egyptians and other pagans), an emphasis on Jesus as the 'son' of God, associated concepts of original sin and atonement, and the central dogma of Jesus' (supposed) crucifixion and resurrection." (1)
Jesus Christ Himself personally commissioned and chose Paul to preach His Gospel to the whole world: "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake" (Acts 9:15,16.) With this special calling from the Lord Himself, written down by Dr. Luke, and subsequently accepted and authenticated by each of the Apostles (Gal. 2:9), Paul would himself later affirm how he had witnessed the risen Christ: "And last of all he [Jesus] was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15:8.) So the above statement about Paul never meeting Jesus is simply an historical blunder and dishonest statement.
The Biblical concept of the Trinity was not first discovered in the Pauline epistles, or any New Testament Book for that matter, but can be traced right back to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. The word 'God' in Genesis is Elohim, which can be translated singular or plural. We also have other Old Testament passages that record the Trinity (although partially hidden from the Jews until the New Testament); and they would be Prov. 30:4; Is. 48:16. In the New Testament, this Biblical concept is fully explored and revealed in the baptism of Jesus Christ, when all three Members of the Godhead are publicly displayed simultaneously and then written down in Scripture by three independent sources:
1) The apostle Matthew, eyewitness to Jesus' ministry (Matt. 3:16,17)
2) The apostle Paul, enjoyed witnessing the risen Saviour (2 Cor. 13:14)
3) The apostle John (1 John 5:7,8)
The mistake this writer also makes is to misunderstand or maybe intentionally misrepresent how the Romans and Egyptians (and all other false religions for that matter) were polytheists. They did not believe in One Supreme God in three Persons, but many gods, so to compare Trinitarianism (three separate and co-equal Persons, not three gods) with polytheism is a gross and absurd statement. To further explain this, please see the following verses, again written down by three separate writers, which state categorically how each Member of the Godhead, is entitled to the office of deity:
1) Jesus is called my Lord and my God (John 20:28)
2) The Father is called God (John 20:17)
3) The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3,4)
With this fact now established, may I show the reader how the Trinity worked in the resurrection of Jesus:
1) Jesus raised Himself from the dead (John 2:20,21)
2) The Holy Spirit raised Him from the dead (Rom. 8:11)
3) God the Father raised Him from the dead (Gal. 1:1)
The crucifixion is absolutely paramount to the sinner's redemption, so when this is questioned, the Bible believer needs to be able to show from the Bible where this is taught. In each of the gospel accounts, the painful and humiliating record of Jesus' excruciating pain (incidentally the word excruciating was conceived to best articulate the dreadful fate that Christ went through) is clearly outlined for all to see.
We are also told from the Old Testament how the blessed Messiah would die: "For dogs [unsaved Gentiles] have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me [Jewish Sanhedrin]: they pierced my hands and my feet" [Roman method of killing criminals, prophesied in the Bible one thousand years before there was even a Roman empire (Ps. 22:16.)
We also have another account of the pain suffered by Jesus: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws [please see this fulfilled in John 19:28]; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death" (Ps. 22:15.)
On these two verses alone, and there many others, the defence rests that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ did happen, and it was not Judas Iscariot that died in the place of Jesus. Such utter nonsense and stupidity is not lost on the well informed.
Further on in their publication they go onto make other bogus claims, which again don't line up with the facts: "Tens of gospels and other writings that individual churches had been free to use, some which presented an alternative view of Jesus, were destroyed; only four were included in the New Testament collection, along with a heavy dose of Paul's writings." (1)
This statement is only partially correct, for Luke does state that others penned their own gospels at the time of his (Luke 1:1,2), but such accounts were lost (never destroyed) and they were never inspired by the Holy Spirit in the first place, because they were not eye witnesses. And further no 'church council' ever decided which books were canonical or not, for the Holy Scriptures actually testify of themselves, not to mention how the early church had already long decided this, while John the Apostle was still alive.
God Became Man
The next problem to face the writer of this pamphlet is how to comprehend the power and majesty of God. Sadly, the writer has the audacity to limit God's unlimited omnipotence by stating: "It is impossible that the Creator of the Universe could appear in any human form, whole or in 'part,' constrained by time and space. As the prophet Solomon is reported as saying after completing the Temple of Jerusalem, 'But will God really dwell on the earth.' (1)
Now we must understand and appreciate several things here. First, nothing is impossible for God to do and this is found clearly in the Old Testament: "Is any thing too hard for the LORD?" (Gen. 18:14.) And in the Koran 3:47: "Rather, when God decides something, He need only say to it 'Be!' and it is." It is interesting that the writer will quote the above verse from 1 Kings 8:27, under the assumption 'it is correct,' but in other places doubts its authenticity and reliability. Is it not fair to say that they are simply doing what all sceptics and unlearned people have long done; pick and choose which parts of the Bible they like, or which parts best suit their own biases and pre-suppositions.
One other point that needs to be made about this shallow understanding of God taking on human form, which happened in many places in the Bible, and to the following people: Abraham (Gen. 18:1); Moses (Ex. 33:11); Joshua (Josh 5:13-15); and Elijah (1 Kin. 19:5-8) is the fact that God the Father may not have taken on human form, but rather God the Son did (1 Tim. 3:16.) As the second Member of the Godhead, it was He that has been seen throughout Biblical history, for did He not say in John 1:18 how no one has seen God at any time. So within Trinitarian theology, all the Christophanies (pre-incarnations of Jesus throughout the Bible) are most easily explained away within the appearances of God in the Bible.
Also by their rejection of God becoming a Man, it would appear that Muslims are more 'powerful' than God. For only they can have children. God, according to them, is 'unable' to. So in essence, Muslims are more 'creative' than the Creator of the universe.
As I continue on in my refutation of these flawed publications, other heresies are noted along the way: "The fact that there is no mention of the word or concept [Trinity] in the Old Testament is one of the most important, as God surely would have found it important enough to mention to Moses and the many other prophets of Old."(1)
The level of ignorance from this writer is rising and anyone who has ever read the entire Old Testament will not have failed to understand the old proverb, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.'
Along with the above verses, which show very clearly how the Triune God raised Christ from the dead, the following verses show how the Godhead created the world also:
The Father (Gen.1:1)
The Son (Col. 1:16-18)
The Holy Spirit (Job 26:13)
However, for those that won't or can't accept this Biblical fact, may I remind such a person of what the apostle Paul wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14.)
One final thing that ought to be shared with the reader concerning the Trinity, and one interesting place where this can be found is Qur'an 5:32: "O humankind! We created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another."
It does appear that Muhammad clearly understood that God, who doesn't work with 'finite partners,' did indeed create the world, along with the infinite Son and Holy Spirit.
Prayers To God
Returning to this publication, may I pick up one more problem with their ideology: "Jesus never taught his followers to pray to himself, and no record of him preaching about a trinity exists." (1)
Now part of this quote is accurate, for while Jesus was on earth the apostles had no need to ask God for anything, for He was with them, for the best three years of their lives. However, with His soon ascension, instructions were given to His disciples on how they were to petition God through prayers, worship and help in times of need; and all such avenues were to be directed to God, and always in the name of Jesus.
Yet this still needs further clarification, for the writer makes the same mistake as other ignorant people do, when he/she thinks they've nailed their 'hypothesis' by quoting, "By myself I can do nothing" and "the Father is greater than I," they fail to understand, however, that these references are speaking of Jesus in His human form, as the Son of Man, not in His divine nature as the Son of God. Scripture tells us: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:6-9.)
Jesus as the Son of God became a man and therefore at times His knowledge of future events was limited, but He never stopped being God Almighty.
As far as the Trinity slur is concerned, I have already dealt with this sufficiently, but one more verse from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself is needed to put this heresy to bed, once and for all: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19.)
For those that may be wondering about the Lord's Prayer or as it should be called the Disciples Prayer, here's something else I wrote, for a past newsletter.
After dealing with the many blunders and false statements made against the Lord Jesus Christ, I now turn to dealing with the accuracy of the Bible: "...Many similar statements which support pure monotheism, although other passages in the New Testament contradict it. Many Christians came to the conclusion that the Biblical texts must have been corrupted, as the Qur'an indeed asserts." (1)
What the reader has just read is nothing short of sacrilege, because what the writer is actually saying is that God wasn't powerful enough to protect and preserve His inspired word. Yet we discover from reading the Bible itself how all Scripture is inspired directly from God (2 Tim. 3:16); that is was written down by Holy men of God (2 Pet. 1:21); that God's word would be forever preserved (Ps. 12:7); and even after Heaven and earth have passed away, God's word would never pass away (Matt. 24:35.) Therefore with all of the above being correct this Islamic publication is simply incorrect, and should therefore be discarded.
One further thought on this heresy is called for. For if the Lord of the universe, after creating the world out of nothing in six literal days, isn't able to protect His precious and inspired written word, than He isn't worthy or fit to be called the Lord God. Because if it were possible for sinful men to contaminate His word to the world, what hope would anyone have, about anything! And another point needs to be mentioned: when did the word of God get contaminated? Before Muhammad or after, and if the latter, when exactly?
Some Muslims like to boast the following: "Interestingly, scholars have verified that the Qur'an is the only world scripture that has but a single version (in Arabic), identical to the text that was revealed more than 1400 years ago." (3)
What the writer doesn't tell his reader is the fact that the Koran has no original manuscripts in any language, anywhere in the world for people to see. In other words, with no manuscripts to go to, the Koran isn't actually able to take any credit for being accurate or reliable, for what can people in reality check it against? The Bible, however, has thousands of Greek and Latin manuscripts, some dating back to the early 2nd century AD.
Jihad: Striving For Peace
In the second publication I wish to start by quoting the following: "Is Jihad Holy War?" No. Definitely not. Jihad should never be confused with Holy War - an idea that does not have a place in Islam. The concept of Holy War does not exist anywhere in the Qur'an, nor is it found in classical Islamic teaching. It is a foreign concept introduced by the Crusaders who wages Holy War against the Muslim infidels in the Holy Land." (2)
I was rather surprised and even perplexed to read a Muslim writer trying to blame non-Muslims for causing today's Islamic Jihads around the world. Quite amazing! What this writer is trying to do in essence is give their religion a 'media makeover.' For while it's true that western Islam is for the most part peaceful and non-confrontational, historical Islam and especially middle-eastern Islam is very much the opposite. (One should also be reminded that the word Islam means 'submission.')
Abu Bakr (Muhammad's favourite father-in-law) taught that the only assurance of salvation for a 'good' Muslim was to be shaheed (this is a Muslim who dies killing non-Muslims or even former Muslims in a Jihad; he becomes an instant martyr, and 72 black haired, female, virgins await him.) Upon this act of murder, the suicide bomber/'martyr' can then vouch for the admittance of 70 members of his own family to enter the Islamic 'paradise.' (It isn't clear, however, if the female bomber gets 72 male, black haired, virgins instead.)
The same publication goes on to say: "For instance, prior to the Spanish Inquisition, Jews and Christians lived and prospered in Spain for centuries under Muslim rule." (2)
In most Islamic countries today Christians are treated like 2nd and 3rd class citizens, and in Saudi Arabia, there are no churches or synagogues allowed, period! However, in the secular west, all religions are allowed and tolerated. (One must understand, however, that the Catholic church killed millions of people in the dark ages, not Bible believing Christians. And on top of that many Calvinist Christians also killed non-Calvinists, but again, never Bible believing Christians.
We are again told: "Terrorism; indiscriminate killing through means like suicide bombings, and weapons of mass destruction; torture and humiliation as tactics of war; and mutilation and disrespect of the dead are all totally forbidden in Islam." (2)
Again, some of the worst types of human rights abuses are found in Islamic countries and those that carry out such cruel and grotesque acts of barbarism are simply following the savagery acts of Muhammad.
My overall understanding of Islam is that of a humanistic religion, which actually revolves around man, his glory and what 'good' he is able to boast to his god about, should he ever hope to enter the Islamic paradise. In other words, the faithful Muslim bribes god by his good works, in hope of entering their paradise.
I am also convinced that Islam doesn't understand what sin really is or even how holy the one true God is, hence why they cling to a false and far less inferior god. The following verses may go some way in demonstrating this: "Furthermore, children are born in a state of purity and do not inherit sin. Life's test is to do one's best and to resist evil in the world and within oneself, so that one can stand before Allah with a clean heart on the Day of Judgment." (3)
"If any do deeds of righteousness whether male or female, and have faith, they will enter Paradise and not the least injustice will be done to them" (Qur'an 4:124.)
The Bible is very clear, however, that man is born in sin and therefore is inherently sinful and wicked. Only God is good and without sin: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Ps. 58:3.)
Just ask anyone if they've kept the 10 Commandments to demonstrate this. The response is always no. If, however, some say yes, ask them if they've ever lied? If they say yes, what does that make them? They will grudgingly say a liar. That would be correct and Revelation 21:8 tells you that all liars will have their place in the lake of fire, which burns forever.
Muslims, tragically, are trusting in their sinful natures (like many professing Christians do) to save them, and because they are stained with original sin, the true God of the Bible will have to consign them to eternal Hell, for nothing unclean can ever enter into His holy presence. Due to this clear Biblical fact, Bible believing Christians throughout the centuries have travelled land and sea preaching and warning people of this, with many risking and even losing their lives along the way. However, one doesn't meet too many Islamic missionaries on the streets in their local cities or towns. (In fact one unforeseen benefit of the ecumenical movement is the absence of mass evangelism from among such members of this movement. For the moment a professing church of Christ yokes itself to a false religion, they have denied Christ and as such, they have now forfeited any sense of legitimacy, and so are permanently discarded by God.)
There are other problems with Islam, which contradict the Bible, but again due to 'Christian churches' being ecumenical, they are totally unwilling and incapable of confronting this: "According to the Qur'an, there was a Garden of Eden. There was a forbidden tree, but no apple, no snake, and certainly no fault on Eve alone. Both Adam and Eve sinned at the same time. They felt shame, repented, and were forgiven together." (4)
Genesis is very clear on the fact that there was a snake/serpent, which the devil himself spoke through, with Jesus blaming the spiritual death of Adam and Eve on Satan (John 8:44.) As far as apples or any particular fruit is concerned, with Scripture not implicitly stating what the fruit was, wise Christians remain non-committed on this. But what we do know explicitly is how Eve listened to the devil's lie, ate of the forbidden fruit, resulting in her being the first person to ever sin, followed by Adam.
We also read that when God confronted them, they hid from Him (this still happens today, just watch any child hide when they know they've done wrong), with Eve blaming the devil, Adam blaming God and the devil being totally silent, because he didn't care. Nobody took responsibility, nobody repented, and therefore all were cursed and punished by God. (This was the cause of original sin.)
It should also noted how the Qur'an is guilty of questioning and changing God's word, just like the devil did when he tempted Eve. But again, don't expect ecumenical churches to speak out against this.
This article has been composed for the glory of God, with only one purpose: that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His name.
The Bible tells sinful and sincerely remorseful people to call upon the name of the Lord, and trust totally and faithfully in Jesus Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save them from their sins against God. The moment a sinner puts their total faith in the precious blood of Christ, they are saved and now safe with God, and as such, are made acceptable and holy before a perfect and eternal God.
What cannot save you from your sins is organized religion. Trusting in your good works will damn you and charities will separate you from God. If there were any other way for wicked people to be reconciled to a sinless God, He would have ordained it. No other way was possible, so God became a Man, entered the human race, lived and existed like His creation does, and ultimately paid the full penalty for man's rotten and dreadful sins, by dying a death, that was fit for a criminal, i.e., a typical sinner.
Jesus lived the perfect life that we could not and so by dying in our place, and later being resurrected from the dead, this demonstrated that God had received His substitutionary atonement for the world, and so from that day forth, anyone that comes to God in childlike faith believing in what His Son has done for sinners, can now be wonderfully saved. God remains God. His sinlessness and perfection remains in tact, because He paid in full our debt to Himself by dying in our place to appease Himself.
Also of great shame to ecumenical churches is their constant use and referral to the sacred name of Jesus. They pretend to speak for Him and as such, present such a garbled and distorted 'gospel' to the world, that for those which are genuinely trying to defend the true gospel and majesty of Jesus, they end up spending twice as much time, clearing up their perverted and feeble 'gospel.' The term 'guilt by association' is most certainly valid in their case, for by their very involvement with this Jesuit movement, they are participating in man's ultimate betrayal of God's clear call to repentance and separation from the world.
If there is one good thing, however, that has come out of this perverted movement, is how the true Bible believing Christian, with their unashamed Christian witness, stands far superior to these wolves in sheep's clothing, and as such, they will be victorious and Jesus will receive all the glory. But in the meantime one needs to expose this 'subtle' movement, and above all, be about their Father's business, for even the devil knows that time is short!
1. Jesus: An Islamic View, 2006
2. Jihad: Striving For Peace, 2005
3. What is Islam: A Holistic Vision, 2006
4. Discover Islam: The Muslim Women, 2005
(All Rights Reserved)