In this article, Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi, the webadministrator of the now defunct site BISMIKA ALLAHUMA claimed to have done a detailed analysis on the effect of the Pauline epistals upon the Gospel and Christianity in general. According to his conclusion, Paul influenced all of Christianity based upon his writings being dated earlier than the Gospels. First of all this is the weakest and most unscholarly approach to any credible argument dealing with Paul since Mr. Juferi lack of scholarly approach will expose his propoganda for being nothing more than a repeat of his Muslim gurus such as Baldawi, Meherally and Shabbir Ally before him. First of all this is a great coincidence since I happen to be doing research upon this same issue that Mr. Juferi posted about. This argument isn't anything new and has been around since the late 80's. It was then picked up by Muslims and then repeated by people who read their material. First we will start with this quote:

This describe Mr. Juferi perfectly. Here his whole argument is based on what he believes what scholars say about Paul and since they must be correct we must conclude that Paul was the founder of Christianity and not a follower of Jesus. Hence, Mr. Juferi is doing nothing more than repeating the same laughable arguments that his masters did before him. First of all he has to use speculative arguments since he clearly knows that he can't find any Quranic and islamic evidence to support his phony claims. This right there makes a very significant point since while he will always try to reject what scholars say about the Quran and revert back to using Islamic information, i.e. claiming that the Quran is so perfect, etc;, He fails to use any Islamic information since it clearly disagrees with what he claims and here is where we will expose him and his non-study of Paul.

Que-Yes Christians do believe that Paul was an apostle of Jesus. However what Mohd fails to elaborate on is that Muhammad is nothing more than a self proclaimed prophet of God. He is forced to use circular reasoning and accept Muhammad without any previous verfication of his prophethood based on previous revelations. Hence his argument is already flawed, biased and totally unscholarly. Now since he claims that this apostle failed to pay attention to the words of Jesus, lets show him the words of Jesus and show you just who isn't paying attention:

Listening to the words of Jesus we see that 1. He personally chose Paul 2. Ananais was the second witness that Jesus himself spoke to which helps verify Paul. 3. Jesus used Paul to carry his name to the gentile world. Hence, we see that Mohd is the one not paying attention to what Jesus actually says and claims. His whole argument stems from the presuppositions of some silly arab prophet who needed hooked on phonics called Muhammad. Here he must read his circular and logically flawed Islamic suppositions back into the life of Paul.

By trying to divert the attention of the reader to the authorship of the Bible and the dating, Mohd somehow believes that this will prove that Paul influenced Christianity since his material was believed to be the first written copy of early Christian scripture. This theory as we will see later will be used against the Quran and it will destroy Mohd and his unscholarly approach to this matter. If you can't prove that this matter is the case or that originally the gospels were different than what Paul said then this is nothing more than a souped up assumption and nothing more. It is strange that Muslims want explicit proof for every Christian argument but in cases like this such as the issue of Paul and Jesus they are willing to rely on conjecture and assumptions. We must ask

1. Where is the proof that early dating of scripture influences other written material after it?
2. What happened to the original material? Was it different?
3. What is the name of scholarly method that shows that using "early material" clearly influences later material?

These are all important points and questions not answered legitamately by this approach by Mohd on the issue of Paul. We must first assume that early texts influenced later ones as well as invent speculative theories never ever used historically or logically to find problems with later text. In conclusion we must clearly state that Mohd desperately wants us to assume, hence use the fallacy of begging the Question, and just agree with him that Paul influenced the gospels and Christianity. As you will see later on, this isn't a fact but just one of the many theories and the scholars themselves which argue this point will clearly claim that "this is my perspective however there are pros and cons to it also". Hence using one side of the argument only shows that Mohd has to rely on the fallacy of exclusion while using deceit to lie against Paul.

First his quote clearly undermines his argument on this issue. Mohd wants to prove that the Gospels have errors in it because of what Paul said, hence the errors would be:

1. Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, since Islam says that this isn't true
2. Jesus claiming to be crucified since Islam also says that this isn't true

These are just two main points which are very important to this issue since to refute them would prove Islam correct and Christianity, which was accordangly founded by Paul, wrong. The problem that is immediately seen is the fact that 1. Mohd must take Islam as being totally correct which is the fallacy of begging the question again. Lets illustrate an example for you:

We will use this same example of argument against the Quran.

Here we used this example dealing with God and the Sonship of Christ. You clearly see the way Mohd is arguing. By first assuming that Islam is correct using logical fallacies, he believes that he can argue against Paul. However the quote he uses totally destroys his argument since it clearly says that:

The beginning of this quote clearly says that the words of Jesus were authoritive and it later states that the reason why some scholars reject Paul is because he didn't refer to these AUTHORITATIVE WORDS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Therefore Jesus words were already known and in the Gospel, despite the fact that they may have been written after Paul. So Mohd can't conclude that the words of Jesus were altered or lost and was influenced by later writers who heard Paul. Lets illustrate these points in detail for you to see clearly:

1. Jesus words were authoritive according to Mohd's sources
2. These words are found in the Gospels which was accordingly written after Paul's letter
3. These same scholars say that the words and theology disagree with Jesus despite the fact that Paul's writings were first.

When you analyze this arguement there are many problems with Mohd's conclusions along with the other Muslim parrots who repeat this same old argument. While in once place he is claiming that Jesus's words are authoritive, in others he is saying that Jesus words in the Gospel were influenced by Pauline thought, written down later. In other words like many other Muslim parrots or apologists he usually contradicts himself. If we prescribe to this first point then his sources are false and wrong since the words of Jesus wouldn't be authoritive. If we prescribe to his second point then he would contradict his whole quotes since they base everything on what Jesus says in the Gospel already. Lets break this down for you:

1. If Jesus's words are seemingly different from Paul then there is no Pauline influence
2. If Paul influenced the Christian writings then there wouldn't be a disagreement in none of theological issues
3. If Paul influenced the writings then why is Jesus seemingly saying different things in these influenced writings? Mohd provides us with nothing more than quick hasty generalizations and logical contradictions.

If such scanty evidence is paid to Jesus words, why doesn't Mohd or his Muslim gurus, whom he copies, like a parrot, tend to utilize the fallacy of exclusion against Paul when:

1. They don't have any Islamic evidence backing their claim.
2. They didn't proceed in any type of legitamate exposition on theological differences between the two?

Makes you wonder or great Muslim parrots love to repeat information without doing a exposition on this matter for all of us to see. Another part of Mohd's above quote also helps to refute his argument since it says that:

This quote seems to reject Paul since it claims that he doesn't refer to Jesus writings that are present now in the Gospel. Again this shows that using dating wouldn't prove that the gospel writer copied ideas from Paul since Mohd's own material claims that the reason for Paul's problem is because he didn't copy in whole detail from these same sources!!! Mr. Mohd should at least read his material carefully before embarrasing himself with such self refuting information. In essence you can't disprove the Gospel writings as being tampered or influenced since it is these same writings in which these same authors quoted in Mohd's article base their entire argument on. Lets illustrate this embarrasing contradiction between Mohd and his sources

David Wenham, world renown scholar on the Paul-Jesus issue recognizes and describes this problem about Paul not allegedly quoting from Jesus in detail:

Wenham is very familiar with the typical anti-Paul apologist out there and how they clearly impose their own thinking on Paul and other Biblical figures. For Mohd to quote a set of scholars and claim that they prove Paul as not being a follower of Christ is logically bogus and worthy of nothing more than to be placed in the top ten section of the fiction section. The issue on Paul isn't set in stone, Mohd is just presenting one side of the issue on Paul which is typical in Muslim apologetics. They agree with everything that goes along with their already preconcieved notions. Wenham also discusses the fallacy of quickly generalizing Paul and Jesus by saying this:

See how misery loves company? Parrots such as Mohd and other Muslim apologetics seem to be upset that Paul doesn't act like a parrot like them. It is silly to repeat everything that Jesus said since it would be a big waste of time. If he did this then what is the need for Jesus then? We don't need more parrots in scripture do we? If we use this methodolgy against the Quran we can conclude that Allah and Muhammad are illegitamate on these matters since the Quran doesn't discuss in any great details on Jesus' life other then infancy fables written in Arabia.

Wenham also shows the fallacy of quickly appealing to scholars without analyizing an issue for yourself. The problem with scholars on this issue is:

An example of Mohd's presuppositions is that Paul isn't a prophet of God nor a true follower of Jesus. Hence he is already using the fallacy of begging the question without proving first that his stance is authoritive. You don't assume something and then seek to prove it. First you prove your assumption right and then seek to use information to support it. This fact is again reiterated:

This is where Mohd's argument fails drastically along with other Muslim parrots who echo his sentiments.

1. He didn't do any equal evidential argument
2. He just assumed that Paul wasn't a prophet and influenced Christianity
3. He didn't quote any extensive Biblical evidence along with his scholarly quotes
4. He is arguing unislamic thinking into Christianity.

Not only can't parrots like Mohd be verified by their pagan Quran and Islamic history, they don't even dare to do an indepth analysis upon the people they claim to refute. Why? Because they know that their evidence is flimsy, flawed and outright bogus.

There is no need to show dependence on the written Gospels since these Church fathers already knew it. This is the same as telling a calculus major that he must show dependence of 1st grade adding and subtraction. He already knows this. Also this point is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with Paul and Jesus. Therefore Mohd is appealing to the fallacy of "red herring" by introducing irrelevant information into the argument. The purpose is to play on wording and quoting to lead the audience into the direction that Paul and the Gospels were influenced before he begans to proceed in proving this exact point. That way he can have his audience especially his Christian audience, thinking that they can now begin to start doubting Paul.

This statement is exactly what we will Judge Mohd by since he claims that his evidence would prove that Pauline letters shaped the selection of the Gospels as we know them today. Hence this action occured pre-Islamic which is another rope that will be wrapped around Muslim parrots such as Mohd. If his evidence is like he claims, then he shouldn't introduce any foreign notions into this argument and let the evidence speak for itself.

No this is false. It is known that the current gospels were already in circulation however the Magdeling Pauprus of Matthew's Gospel is dated to around 30-40 a.d. long before the writing of the Pauline epistles. Found cited source (Eyewitness to Jesus). Mohd needs to update his information and stop relying on copied and past sources from points he thinks is correct. NOTE: I will present more on this in the near future. To show you examples of Mohd lying or either using outdated information read:

Hence, further research confirms O'Callahan's theories which establish beyond any reasonable doubt the reliability of the New Testament. Even without these discoveries, the evidence from the Patristic writings and MSS overwhelmingly supports the authenticity and reliability of the biblical text.

Patristic writings also solidify the case for the preservation of the NT text and its early composition, as well as the extensive usage of the New Testament, especially that of the four Gospels:

These Gospels were already verified by scholars as being copies not original, hence the originals were in circulation earlier before the writings of Paul. This was even verfied by the Qumran text. Mohd and other Muslim parrots fail to verify information other than what they believe as being correct.

Professor Brandon doesn't confirm Mohd's theory, which is "The earliest Christian writings were written were those of Paul". If he did then he clearly would have stated that Paul's writings were the earliest writings THAT WERE WRITTEN. Mohd need to know what the word Preserve means so we will inform him:

The word preserve doesn't mean nothing about written composition it only shows that Paul's writings were the earliest written ones that were found. This idea would totally be blown out of the water once earlier manuscripts are found before Paul's epistals. However this information is now outdated. It was thought that this was true until recent discover has shown that this was disproven. The Dead sea scrolls among other information also refutes this speculation. Even if Paul was still the earliest found, this isn't evidence that the Gospels were influenced by Paul since Mohd would have to show us where Paul changed the thinking of the disciples from what was originally said. Hence he must now go into speculative theories based on what he believes in Islam. This isn't proof of an argument, this is the fallacy of begging the question and appealing to dubious authority.

Notice the typical Muslim argument.

The quote says "highly probable", it mentions nothing about the gospels being destroyed or rewritten. It talks about chronologly not the destruction of the Gospels. To show you something, Muslims such as the parrot Mohd commonly love to repeat the idea of the Gospel being destroyed or changed. It is funny that Ibn khazeem or Hazeem was the one in the 10th century 400 years after Muhammad, was the first Muslim to invent this theory, hence while inventing arguments by someone not even a prophet Mohd thinks that he can refute the Bible and the gospels:

Since according to Mohd's theory that the Gospels were influenced by Paul, how come Allah doesn't say one verse addressing Paul in the Quran? Why does he have to rely on secular sources which he wouldn't accept dealing with his own Quran or Islamic history? When you break down a bogus argument such as this one you clearly see that the author or the parrot in this case is clearly jumping through loops to get us to believe what they say about Paul. Seems like Ibn Khazem is the true prophet of Islam hence we Christians can say that he is the Islamic Paul right? (No offense to the great apostle of God himself, who carried God's word to the world). Not only have we must begun to expose this Islamic hoax on Paul but we also addressed this insane Muslim fallacy applied by Mohd the parrot and other like him in trying to use every method possible to debunk the bible. So, we will repeat it for your reference:

5. THE BIBLE HAS BEEN CORRUPTED OVER TIME BY CHRISTIANS.

RESPONSE: This is another fallacy of Slothful Induction. The Quran never mentioned any sort of scripture which says:

CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS PROMOTING THIS ARGUMENT: Tell them to show you something exactly of this nature in the Quran and then prove it historically by showing how one one bible with the same passage says the exact opposite of another bible with the same passage. Meaning example:

Since they can't produce this proof, Muslims can only rely on the difference in English translations as the source of their proof. Please tell them nicely that the bible wasn't written in English and that word differentiation patterns in the Greek N.T. especially has no effect on the meaning of the language. That only occurs, well, in English. Muslims will tend to believe anything their Sheik, etc. will tell them blindly.

And,

Muslims love to use this argument in trying to convert people to Islam. They proceed to attack the bible with the strange perception that this would somehow prove the Quran. Hence their strategy is:

PROVE THE BIBLE WRONG SO THE QURAN CAN BE CORRECT

Obviously this is a major fallacy and is called a "strawman argument" in which they weaken the argument at hand in order to prove their poing instead of answering the point directly. Muslims are also very good at utilizing the fallacy of exclusion to lie to their Christian audience. By hiding certain information they feel that this can some how prove to their potential convert that Islam is true. Lets show you just how they ignore certain important parts in the Quran:

1. First and Foremost, they claim that the Bible is corrupted. Not only is this ludicrous and incredulous, it totally ignores what the Quran says about the Bible. Here is what the Quran actually says:

"If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you..." S. 10:94

If the Bible is corrupted or lost, this proves that Allah is telling Muhammad to verify his own message, the Quran, on a corrupted source!! Therefore by disproving the Bible you would also disprove the Quran!! Since According to modern Islam, the bible is corrupted, this would lead them to fall into the fallacy of "SUBVERTED-SUPPORT". Here the phenomenon being explained, in this case the verification test of the Quran, doesn't exist!!! Hence, we must reject the Quran as being unprovable and illogical and false since even the Quran says to judge base on previous scriptures!! Look at this passage:

"And I will write down (my mercy) for those who are righteous and give alms and who believe in our signs; who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that IS WITH THEM."

Here the Quran even claims that Muhammad is found in previous scriptures!! This verse mentions nothing about a Gospel or Torah "that was with them" as opposed to "IS with them". So if the Bible was lost or corrupted then we must conclude that Allah is a liar since we wouldn't be able to find Muhammad in it. If it is corrupted then it shows that Muhammad is a corrupted prophet being prophesied by a corrupted book!! Read this passage:

"And let the People of the Gospel JUDGE by what God has revealed in it. If any fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are licentious." S. 5:50

"If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, we should have blotted out their sins and admitted them to gardens of bliss." "If only they had performed the Torah and the Gospel and all that was revealed to them from their Lord, they would have eaten from above and from under their feet. Among them is a People (umma) on the right course, but evil is that which many of them do..." "Say, O People of the Book! You are not (founded) on anything until you PERFORM the Torah and the Gospel, and what was revealed to you from your Lord." S. 5:68-71

Hence to accept Bible corruption, one would be force to conclude that Allah's revelations can be change by mere human beings!! What type of God is this?!!! The Quran clearly tells Christians to judge based upon what Allah revealed in it, not the Quran!! Also it says that the people of the book (Bible, Bible means book) have to perform the Torah and Gospel!! Not the Quran!!! So if the Bible is corrupted this would contradict these passages:

Therefore Muslims who believe this unQuranic theory would contradict their own book and disaffirm their belief in the Quran!! This is just fine with us since it proves that they can't even support such false polemics from their own book!! So which one is it? if the Bible is corrupted or lost then this means that the Quran is incorrect!! Look at these verses:

"God has bought from the believers their selves and their wealth, and for them is the garden (of Paradise) if they fight in the ways of God: and whether they kill or are killed, the promise of God IS true in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an, and who is more faithful to his promise than God?" S. 9:111

"To you (Muhammad) We revealed the book in truth, attesting to (the truth of) that which IS between his (its) hands from the scripture (the Torah and Gospel), and guarding it (wa muhaiminan `alaihi)..." S. 5:51

According to the Quran, the promise of God is true in both the Torah and Gospel. Also Allah said that he revealed "THE BOOK" that is attesting to pevious truth in the Torah and Gospel. Hence who should we agree with? Muslims who claim that both are corrupted partially or fully? or the Quran? Muslims themselves can be some of the biggest hypocrites in promoting their religion since it requires believing this here and believing that over there!! These last 2 passages should drive this home:

"They (the Meccans) say, `Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?' What! Has not a clear sign come to them in what IS in the former pages (al-suhuf al-aulla )?" S. 20:133

And,

"And before thee (Muhammad), We sent no one, except men, to whom We granted revelation. ASK (plural) the people of the Scripture message, if you don't know." S. 21:7

According to the Quran clear proof of God himself is in the former scriptures of the Torah and Gospel and he even commanded Muhammad to ask the people of the scripture if he didn't know!! So much for Muslim bible corruption hoax. Need we say more? No.

CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS PROMOTING THIS ARGUMENT: Show us where it is okay to believe some of the Quran and disbelieve other parts to arrive at this theory. Since the Muslim can't do this we obviously see that this is some invention of modern day Muslims to counter God's word in the Bible.

Macoby's book was written as early as 1986, almost 16 years ago. The Gospel accounts have long been verified to have preceeded 70 a.d. as discussed above. Then New Testament isn't dominated by Paul. He isn't preaching himself but Jesus as he was commanded by Christ himself. Jesus himself made Paul the head honcho because it was him, whom Jesus personally chose to carry his message throughout the gentile world. It would make sense to see much of Paul since such an important task would need written elaboration. Also the problem about appealing to dubious authority such as Macoby is his consistent errors on the New Testament. Paul wasn't the most important person in the New testament:

Paul and Jesus are important to the New Testament, not just Paul. Another typical anti-Pauline argument in an effort to try and isolate Paul to make him the villian. The most embarrasing part for Mohd is that he can't even substantiate his stance from his own Islamic religion. Surely Allah and Muhammad knew about Paul and his so-called inconsistences between Jesus. However the Quran tells you only to adhere to the so-called late gospels. Mohd even believes that Muhammad is propheised in these same Gospels. So the Muslim hoax is exposed for all to see since they love to take everything which agrees with their unsubstantiated theories.

This is nothing more than sensationalism and mere hype. To state that Paulinist composers put everything into their own shape is nothing more than a great conspiracy theory. Mohd the parrot is trying hard to adhere to his true Islamic prophet Ibn Khazem. The problem with this great claim is

1. Where are the original pre-Pauline documents to verify such a claim?
2. What would they gain by doing this? Did they look into a crystal ball to see into the future to find Islam?
3. If Paul did this with Jesus, why promote another man? Why not make your own self God, you would get more attention this way!
4. Where are these rival interpretations? Where they biblical consistent?
5. If Paul accomplished this, how come there is no historical reference from church enemies from that time claiming exactly this samething?
6. Did Paul destroy all of the rival documents in the Near east?

This theory is a big joke and Mohd and other Muslim parrots have delved into the realm of fantasy and pure conjecture to try and discredit Paul. If Paul could do all of this by himself then we should be worshipping him as God, not Jesus!! Ibn Khazem would be very happy with his modern parrot, Mohd.

One thing that is totally amusing about these above quotes is that Mohd doesn't tell his audience that this is nothing more than a speculative theory and not some established scientifical or archeological fact. Read:

The next page states that scholars simply picked up this view and argued from it along with Maccoby. The problem with is that this is nothing more than the fallacy of appealing to authority. Scholars are in disagreement dealing with Paul and this issue, hence to quote one guy doesn't prove an argument. So we see that Mohd, instead of showing information from the Bible to back up the scholars he claims to verifies his point, has done nothing more than become a typical parrot and picked up with what Maccoby said. Maybe we should remind him that Maccoby totally rejects Islam and based on Maccoby we can conclude that Islam is false. Maccoby also adheres to the Bultmann school of scholars who use such reasons and more to reject Paul. Mohd believes this to be correct since he believes that Paul doesn't fit in as an apostle of Christ. However, this theory isn't true and Wenham shows us again why it is so fallacious to adhere to such a hasty conclusion:

As we seen above Mohd's datings of the New Testament are old and outdated. He needs to continously studying upon New Testament scholarship to keep himself informed of recent developments. He presents these outdated times below:

This is a hasty generalization, showing dates has nothing to prove whether Paul influenced Christian thinking. In fact the book "Paul, Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?" discusses this same theory and says that this is flawed because scholarly evidence isn't based just on dates but on weighing both sides of the arguments and testing to see if each is true. Read Mohd's statement again dealing with his proof about Paul:

Notice that Mohd didn't quote any credible source to prove that dates prove that Paul influenced the Gospel, he just basically said this based on his his islamic interpolation. Did his quote mention anything about these dates saying that Paul influenced the Gospels? No. How can you legitamately conclude based on dates that someone did anything? Why couldn't Mohd show extensive evidence explictedly saying that Paul did this? We wonder why? It's because he couldn't find any credible information to prove his point. All he has done is shown that he is a parrot that can quote theories and one side of an argument as stated facts. This is a typical muslim strategy. His entire quote has nothing to do with Paul and it is totally irrelevant as to whether Paul dominated the New Testament and influenced the Gospels. It is nothing more than one of his bogus fantasies.

As his guru's before him the parrot continues on to repeat the same old information 1. He quotes dates without them saying anything about Paul 2. He just assumes that since the Gospels are written after that Paul influenced them 3. After concluding that Paul influenced them we must now discard Christianity as a St. Paulism

The problem with this quick conclusion is that

1. He didn't show exactly how dates interacted with authorship and influence. Hence he has committed the fallacy of equivocation.
2. He didn't show any early evidence from the time of Jesus or Paul where they changed the gospel
3. He didn't present with any verifiable manuscripts which say different thing from what Paul claimed. Therefore he must assume by using the logical fallacy of begging the question and just believes what he already stated at the beginning without verifying whether this position is true. Hence, this would also lead him into another fallacy of circular reasoning.

None of what Mohd says is true, notice that he doesn't quote any credible evidence to prove his point. The problem with this argument is that Mohd adheres to the Hadith literature on very imporatant issues even though it was written down long after so-called events happened. Hence he is totally biased on this approach. You should see how he tries to use the Hadith in his argument on the Jesus Isa issue. Muslims such as Mohd believe that Abraham went to Mecca, where do they base their evidence on? The Hadith, which was written almost 2000 years after the life of Abraham. Also he fails to explain why the Quran or the Hadith is silent on the issue of Paul influencing the gospel. In fact Muhammad said this about Christ's followers:

As the book true guidance requotes Ibn Kathir, we find that Muhammad clearly believed that all of Jesus followers weren't led astray by anybody as well as left their books unchanged! Hence Muhammad, the prophet of Islam has just debunked Mohd, the parrot follower of Ibn Khazem. Mohd and other parrots need to study their own religion before adhering to scholars that also reject Islam, their bogus pagan religion.

First of all I would like to thank Mohd for given another rope around his neck since this quote unanimously affirms the greatness of Hebrews. It says that:

1. It was carefully constructed-meaning it wasn't tampered and interpolated
2. It extensively uses the OT to demonstrate the fulfilment of Jesus Christ- meaning the author carefully constructed the ministry of Christ and verified it by the OT. We can conclude that the OT promised Jesus and not Muhammad.

Mohd has just given us another self-refuting quote against him and Islam. I will definitely use it against him in the future. Also the authorship of a book doesn't affect Christianity at all since there is no general rule that the author must be known for the book to be inspired. Who wrote the Quran? Muhammad didn't, neither did Allah, so which one of the scribes wrote it down for us? We don't know so using Mohd's theology we must reject the quran also as being false:

We can apply this same logic to the Quran, which has Surah's named after people who didn't write them read:

10.YUNUS (JONAH)
11.HUD (HUD)
12.YUSUF (JOSEPH)
14.IBRAHIM (ABRAHAM)
19.MARYAM (MARY)
27.AN-NAML (THE ANT, THE ANTS)
34.SABA (SABA, SHEBA)
47.MUHAMMAD (MUHAMMAD)
71.NOOH (NOAH)
72.AL-JINN (THE JINN)
105.AL-FIL (THE ELEPHANT)

Hebrews authorship is unimportant to the Christian since it is the message not the person that is important:

And,

Need we say more? No. Authorship has never been important in biblical and New Testament scholarship. Even the skeptical scholars don't use such a silly idea to argue from.

Okay? And how does this affect Paul, Jesus etc? If Mohd is saying that because the author is unknown that this proves his point then he has committed the fallacy of equovicaction and would run into these problems

1. What does authorship have to do with inspiration
2. The author could be known and the book could be uninspired
3. The author could be unknown and the book could be inspired
4. Is there some decree from God that all books must name their author?

The reason why the author is unknown is because his name isn't important. The people of that time knew who he was and that is all that matters. If Mohd's point is correct, how come he couldn't show us a document from that time refuting this exact point? Why point to scholars which came 1900 years later when according to what he and other Muslims are trying to argue-- anything that comes late isn't true? Hence, he gives another reason to reject this point.

First of all Maccoby is totally ignorant of the Bible and he compounds this problem with extra lies. Lets show you just how the so-called leaders disagreed with Paul:

And,

Peter addresses Paul as a "dear brother" and classifies his writings as inspired Scripture, placing them on the same level of authority as the other divinely revealed Scriptures. Maccoby obviously isn't credible since any bible student could easily point this out. By becoming a parrot and just repeating everything this guy claimed Mohd verifies our point earlier, that he doesn't know anything about the Bible. So when you call someone your dear brother you are in disagreement with him? Hilarious.

No we haven't, all we've seen from here is that up until recent findings, they predated the gospels as far as existing copies.

1. How does dates prove that someone influenced other writing?

It doesn't and as we will demonstrate later on, using this same methology, we will wrap a rope around Mohd's neck by using this unscholarly thinking.

Jesus had no idea? Maybe Mohd failed to read:

Unlike Jesus, Mohd must have memory loss or something.

Based on what? If so then we can reject the entire Quran since it wasn't written by prophet Muhammad right? Yes. Also where in scholarly debate does this make them unacceptable? Mohd doesn't give us one quote from the scholarly majority to prove this point. Hence he just made all of this up. Now to expose his sillyness lets show you what Islam's prophet, Muhammad himself says about Paul:

Muhammad himself said that Jesus was commissioned by God to send disciples as well as Paul!! Notice that Ibn Ishaq predates the most credible Hadiths by over 125 years. Jesus, quoted by Muhammad said that this is a thing his followers must do. Other Muslim sources that affirm the preceding statement include:

And,

The translator comments on the statement that Paul was not an apostle:

Hence, according to Tabari Paul was a faithful promoter of the Apostles' teachings, especially the teachings of the Apostle Peter having been his traveling companion. In fact, Tabari lists Paul as one of those martyred for the faith:

Amazingly, The Qasi Hadith even quotes Paul and attributes the saying to God himself!:

According to this Hadith, Muhammad purportedly claims that Allah revealed the preceding quotation to about the eternal rewards his righteous servants shall receive. Compare what Allah is supposed to have revealed to Muhammad with what Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Paul is paraphrasing the following citation from Isaiah:

Hence, according to the Hadith the one who inspired Paul's saying, which Muhammad alludes to in virtually identical language, is none other than God! Notice that Allah didn't directly quote Isaiah but added Paul's words, "no mind has concieved" as "no heart can ever think of". This is referring to thinking which isn't present at all in Isaiah but later developed with Paul's own sayings!! Since Paul is consider a deciever by Mohd, we must be forced to conclude that Jesus, Muhamamd as well as God is also a deciever!!! Muslims hate this quote since it undermines their thinking about Paul.

This basically means that Muslims have no basis to object to Paul's writings since Muhammad, Ishaq and Bukhari attribute Paul's work to God, implying that Paul was a legitimate representative of Christ's teachings. The only way for Mohd to avoid the significance of these early Islamic traditions is to deny the traditions completely, as well as intentionally ignore Muhammad. This would make him an apostate. Mohd may elaborate about Paul being a liar and use so-called Christian scholars opinions. However since when is theologians and so-called Christians better than Muhammad, Allah, and the Islamic tradition's account? We will leave that for Mohd to answer for us.

This stuff about Paul repeated by these Muslim parrots was originally thought of by Meherally and was answered long time ago on answering Islam. Like many parrots before them they love to repeat information because it sounds good to their ears. When we analyize what Muhammad mentions about Paul we see that 1. He likened the task for spreading God's news to the one he called his own Muslim followers. 2. The message that he gave which Paul and others were likened was universal and for all men. 3. God sent him just like he sent Jesus who inturn sent Paul and the disciples.

A parrot is a dumb bird who repeats anything he picks up that sounds good to him, we find it strange that Muslims follow the whims of such a dumb bird. We must conclude that all Mohd has done was use basically the fallacy of appealing to authority and nothing more, he hasn't done any detailed analysis on Paul to verify what his quote says. To quote something without formulating an argument means absolutely nothing. The bible totally disagrees with Mohd and his shoddy scholarship. But most imporantly, Muhammad himself totally destroys his argument dealing with Paul. How could Jesus meet and commision Paul as Muhammad claimed without seeing him in the physical life? It was through the vision on Paul's way to Damascus. Paul wasn't a disciple but according to Muhammad, the inspired prophet of Allah, Paul himself was personally sent by Jesus himself. Muslim parrots such as Mohd can't even argue certain point without refuting their own pagan religion. Amazing!

Now we will begin to show you some pointers against Paul that Mohd challenged us to answer on the link http://www.geocities.com/queball23/answeringantitrinitarians.html

Actually this is an age old misunderstanding. Paul didn't come to abolish the law:

 


Paul: "...therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

Jesus: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

 

Paul and the ritual law. For Paul, as for Jesus, ritual was merely a pointer to the moral law. Outward appearance was only important in sofar it said something about the inner state of the soul.  

For Paul, as for Jesus, any ritual that added unnecessary burden or bondage to believers without aiding them in the law of love could be discarded:  

A modern day parallel would be to force people to pray in a language they don't understand.

What does Paul call the "Curse of the law"? Paul simply states that because God made a law, we were all condemmed under that law, since all mankind has sinned. It is not the law that is bad, it is the breaking of the law that causes the condemnation. We see that it is only by creative editing of scriptures that one can come to the conclusion that Paul contradicted Jesus in his doctrine of the Law, or that he changed the law of Jesus.

Why can't Mohd show us one Quranic verse which explictedly exposes Paul?: Why is there no Quranic verse that tells us that Paul's teachings were wrong? Why are the only Islamic sayings on Paul verifying his claim as follower of christ, along with being quoted by Allah? Mohd didn't dare let in onto this for the fear of being exposed as being a biased Muslim parrot. We will even show what Muhammad's earliest companions said about the Bible:

Ibn Abbas Muhammad's first cousin and a Sahabi (Companion) explicitly states that none of God's Books (i.e. the Holy Bible and the Quran) have ever been nor could they ever be corrupted. In Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitaab Al-Tawheed, Baab Qawlu Allah Ta'ala, "Bal Huwa Qur'aanun Majeed, fi lawhin Mahfooth" (i.e. in Sahih al-Bukhari, Book "The Oneness of God", the Chapter on Surat Al-Borooj (no. 85), Verses 21, 22 saying, "Nay this is a Glorious Qur'an, (Inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved.") we find in a footnote between 9.642 and 643:

This is the Tafseer (commentary) of Abdullah Ibn Abbas, one of the Sahaba (Companions) and Muhammad's cousin. His opinions (because he is a Sahabi) are held to be above the opinions and commentaries of all other Sheikhs who are not Sahaba.

They knew about Paul, however we find it strange that the only corruption and influence upon any part of the Bible was done by people of Muhammad's time who tried to interpret everything the wrong way. A total destruction of Mohd and other Muslim influence theories against Paul. Later on in this serious we will began to expound on the Quran being influenced by heretical thinking. First our goal here was to address the issue on Paul. Stay tune.

Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com  

1. Home Back Home
2. New Articles Back to New Section.