Ken Begging for Attention at Beggars All

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Ken Begging for Attention at Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

As I had mentioned in a few post prior to this that I have been contributing to a blog called'Articuli Fidei' over here at http://articulifidei.blogspot.com.

It is a very excellent blog that I recommend to anyone.

I also mentioned some of the other contributors and people I have interacted with over at this web site including my good friend Ken.

Ken who stops by this blog from time to time really took exception to a recent post of mine"Franklin Graham and the Christian message of hate".

Which is a few post down but for those too lazy here it is:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/04/franklin-graham-christian-message-of.html

The amazing and sad thing I find about some Christians in these times is the inconsistency. It's really leaves one breathless!

You see if I was to comment on how sneaky it was of Ken to make a post over at Beggars All (Begging for attention from Roman Catholics) without me knowing Ken would have responded, "Well GB19 what about all the post you make of James White without e-mailing him etc".

I would have to agree with this caveat: Our good friend James does the exact same thing. In fact when has he ever went to the Zaytuna Institute (first ever Muslim university in the United States) and sat down with Hamza Yusuf, Imam Zaid Shakir and had a cup of coffee with them and discussed issues about Islam that concerns him?

But that's o.k I'm not going to call Ken out on that. However, stopping over at Articuli FideiI did note something rather odd. Recently there was a blog entry entitled:

Do the Shi’ites believe there are “lost surahs”?

The amazing thing was the silence of Ken. I mean this is a golden opportunity is it not? So much of my attention was focused on showing Ken that Jesus is not descended from David through Solomon.

I also had to show Ken that contrary to what he previously thought and what other Christians told him that the Talmud was silent about Jesus 'dying and rising again'. My friend McElhaney is about to learn the same thing.

So now there was a chance for me to be put under pressure. The Qur'an was coming under scrutiny.

You can go and see my comments here:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-shiites-believe-that-there-are-lost.html

I sat and I waited. I waited for Ken to go grab something from answering-islam or answering-muslims or ministry to muslims. I waited and all was quite on the western front.

I think Ken took some offense because one of his buddies James White was shown to be inconsistent and found wanting when it came to his knowledge of the subject matter in a debate he had with Shabir Ally.

Apologist James White Inconsistent and Dishonest

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-inconsistency-and.html

So any how I hope anyone can see it's a bit hard to interact with material if you don't know the source and the quotes.

So any way Ken and I got to having a back and forth which can be seen here:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/03/bible-prophecy-is-rise-muhammad-andor.html

So this brings me to his recent post of Ken's here:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/04/ahmad-deedat-style-of-debate-tactics.html

I honestly felt this was a very strange title for a blog entry because it seemed that his main ax to grind was with me; and my recent post about Franklin Graham and the Pentagon. I don't know where he was actually interacting with any of Ahmed Deedat's material but as he says,

"I want to deal with his bad handling of Bible verses first, then say something about the political statements of conservative Christians last. This will probably be divided up into several posts over different days."

I think achieved my objective in my post if I can get someone like Ken to react in such a manner. You see Christians are often fond of quoting the Qur'an out of context. By context I mean the occasion on which the revelation was sent down (called Asbab Al Nazul) or the circumstance or occasion for the revelation being revealed.

This actually shows more of an intimate relationship between the creator and the created rather than someone just being 'tickled' by the Holy Spirit to write a third person narrative events.

More on that some other time Allah willing. I think Christians Muslims or anyone who has an interesting in world religions knows how important interpretation is.

Ken knows for example that as a Calvinist that when Arminian Christians say that Jesus died for 'All' that this simply means the elect who were arbitrarily chosen by God before the foundation of the world.

So for most Christians the word 'All' is pretty obvious that it means everyone on this earth. However for Calvinist like Ken, and James White it simply is not the case.

Well, let's say I am charitable and I agree with them on this point can't the same thing not be done with the Qur'an?

Take for example where the Qur'an says,

"Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." (2:194 Holy Qur'an)

However does this mean if someone rapes my wife , daughter and son that Allah is now commanding me to go and rape their wife daughter and son? This is absurd! If you take this verse at it's zahir (apparent meaning) and ignore other text of the Qur'an , the Sunnah of prophet Muhammed (saw) and views of mufassirun (the exegetes of the Qur'an) than of course you could allow for this kind of twisted interpretation.

Take another favorite passage that is used and abused.

"Fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them!" (9:5 Holy Qur'an)

So this means that Muslims should wake up every day after a bowl of Kellogg Apple Jacks and go grab up the AK-47 and 'get to work'. This verse must mean that Muslims should go and kill children, and women and every one on this earth who is not a Muslim. Wow! You mean we don't even give them a chance to become a Muslim first huh?

However what is totally and completely ignored is the context of the Qur'an itself.

"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged- and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory- (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right- (for no cause) except that they say, 'Our Lord is Allah'.... (22:39-40 Holy Qur'an)

And what about this verse Ken?

"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors.... And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against transgressors (2:190-193 Holy Qur'an.)

So Ken wants to set me straight on my recent post. You know what I say? Good! Why not consider his interpretation and understanding. However when it comes to us as Muslims the same standards are not applied.

Islam and Muslims must be cast in the most dismal light possible. In fact I predict that Ken will probably reply with the same silliness taken from his favorite anti-Islamic web sites that say, "But wait all those peaceful verses are abrogated by the war like ones".

Ah! The good old Ibn Hazm says those verses are abrogated argument. Do you know what Ken? I hope Swan is tuning in as well. Do you know how embarrassing it would be for James White to have someone like me sit across from him during a cross fire in a debate and say, "James White tell me what do you know about Ibn Hazm?" I have a whole host of questions that would embarrass him.

James White will look the same way he did when Bart Ehrman exposed how little he knew about the leading textual authorities in the respective fields of this time.

And it will go on and on... as such some times these exchanges become very predictable.

Personally I am glad for the internet and blog sites. These video taped debates accomplish next to nothing. It's all about who is the best toastmaster champion and who has better voice inflection; who can be crafty and catch their opponent off guard.

You know who does this today? Everyone! Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sunni, Shi'ite, Arminian, Calvinist, you name it. Most of these so called debates are huge ego trips.

I am not the least bit shy in saying that most of my fellow Americans today are a dumb down generation who are growing up on a steady diet of crispy cremes and television sound bites.

I mean does anyone Republican or Democrat think it's a matter of boast to say "I am more popular in the most illiterate states of America!" Wow!

I hope my blog appeals to READERS and THINKERS. People who can analyze the strengths of the arguments presented and look at the pros and cons and weigh it all out. With Allah is the final argument.

Any how Ken does say something in his post that caught my attention.

"The Grandverbalizer19 and I had a peaceful, good discussion/informal debate, where I sought to preach the gospel as much as possible, at David Waltz’ blog recently, the com-boxes up to 249 comments. He has yet to answer everything."

You know I could be snide and say the only reason it was a peaceful discussion is because John Calvin wasn't standing over your shoulder telling you to burn me along with Servetus. Of course Ken can reply and say I am also grateful I am not challenging Islam in front of a live audience in Tehran! Fair enough. But you see if we are not charitable and hospitable towards one another this will not create an atmosphere of truth seeking and honesty in a globalized world.

So since Ken feels I have yet to 'answer everything' and I admit I may have over looked some points maybe he could point out what I failed to 'answer'.

I'll give a list of things I feel Ken has not answered:

For example when you tried to show how Jesus is a descendant of David through Solomon anyone who is interested in this could go back and look at our discussion and see if you answered it to their satisfaction.

Look for example of how you dealt with it:

Is Jesus really the Son of David through Solomon?

Jesus got His human nature from Mary - that is obvious because she was a virgin - Luke 1:26-27, 34-35. Even the Qur'an agrees with the virgin birth, that Jesus had no human father - Surah 3:45-48; 19:19-21

"as was supposed" is clear in Luke 3:23 - the people thought He was Joseph's son, but He was not.

The genealogies both include from Abraham to David, but then one son of David was Nathan (Mary's line - in Luke) and Solomon was Joseph's line (the royal, kingly, legal line) (Matthew)

Matthew deliberately uses "begotten" or "was born" or "became the father of" - normal physical births down to Joseph.

But Luke's genealogy does not have that word, just "of so and so" - it is open, in order to communicate that "of Heli" shows that Joseph was the "son in law of Heli", who was Mary's father.

There is no other way to understand the differences in the genealogies, the lack of "son" and "begotten/born"/ became the father of" in Luke's genealogy, the emphasis in Luke on Mary, and then all the other verses all through the NT about Jesus being both human, "Son of Man" and "God in the flesh"/Son of God/God the Son from all eternity.

Than this was my response to you Ken:

"But Luke's genealogy does not have that word, just "of so and so" - it is open, in order to communicate that "of Heli" shows that Joseph was the "son in law of Heli", who was Mary's father."

Again this is what David L. Blank, Professor of Classical Languages at the University of California had to say about Armonld Fruchtenbaum and his views.

"According to the Greek original, Eli is indeed the father of Joseph. There is a definite article before each name, except that of Joseph, and that definite article is in each case the masculine genitive singular article -- you. Not only does this not clearly indicate that Joseph is skipped in the genealogy, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken as so indicated. The author's comments on the Greek grammar of the passage are absurd and manifest an appalling ignorance of the facts of Greek syntax."

So where a person see's Mary in Luke is beyond me

After this Ken there was radio silence. I didn't accuse you nor do I accuse you now of 'running away' or "not answering everything". I just let the point go.

However, I did feel that you were not addressing me on the issue of Jesus in the Talmud. I felt you were being condescending to me. As if you were saying look all these Christian apologist say that Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud so you must believe it to.

Than came the moment of saving grace for you in my eyes when you said,

I finally had time to think about that question; I confess I knew the least about the Talmud question, that is why I addressed Josephus and Tacitus first.

It seems that the Talmud is completely silent on Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believe is the Messiah, crucified, buried, and rose from the dead miraculously.

The article below shows that none of the references to a "Yeshu" in the Talmud can be about Jesus of Nazareth.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

I really respect you for admitting that Ken. I also hope that other Christians will back away from making the claim that Jesus is dying and rising from the dead is in the Talmud.

I could also accuse you of not interacting with questions from people in the comments section of your post.

Answering a question close to four months old from one of his post.

For example I can't but help think poor beowulf2k8 is wondering if is comment will ever be responded to you where he says here:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/so-why-did-allah-substitute-innocent.html

2:34 AM, JANUARY 11, 2010

beowulf2k8 said...

"He also referred to some of the early church ideas of “ransom to Satan”, which is not Biblical at all;"

WHat's not biblical about it? A ransom is the price to buy a slave right. So, who was the slave master that Jesus was buying us from? Not the Father obviously, because then there would be no point in buying what he already had. If you don't want to go the Gnostic route of ransom to an evil Demiurge, and think yourself too high and mighty to go the route of ransom to Satan, then what you end up left with is a nonsensical circular story about God buying us from himself that has no practical use whatsoever.

Today is 9;35 A.M April 27th And there is still no response to his question. In fact I count two questions. But do I accuse you Ken of "not answering everything"?

Ken not answering questions on how he knows what Is inspired scripture.

What about these questions I posed to you I didn't see them answered? You said,

"The Greek of I Peter is a much higher quality grammatically than 2 Peter. 2 Peter 3:16 affirms all of Paul's letters, and 2 Tim. 3:16 calls all true Scripture God-breathed."

Than here is my response to you Ken...

There are a few points about this. First when it says all TRUE scripture does this not beg the question. How do you KNOW which scripture is TRUE.

Next if Peter does confirm all of Paul's epistles it does not give us a total.

For example does Peter confirm the following

In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul said: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.”

I don't recall you interacting with this Ken. I don't believe James Swan or White has trained you people how to determine what IS scripture.

Concerning the "Love of God and the Elect in Calvinism" I asked you the following questions Ken.

You said God chooses people out of his Love. Doesn't this beg the question. Who gets God's love and why? What makes these people get elected over others? Please explain how this is not capricious?

I don't know where this leaves us Ken? I was under the impression we had a pretty good thing going and a good back and forth. However giving a post at Beggars All blog spot that looks like it's dealing with Ahmed Deedat's taking things out of context and than addressing my recent blog entry seemed a bit dubious at best.

So basically I did my blog post to show that a person can selectively quote New Testament text or even Muslim political authorities in much the same way you said in your blog entry and I quote,

"Muslims like to bring up certain OT texts and punishments in the law of Moses; and the Muslim likes to mix different contexts for different verses and they also like to quote American conservative political figures and TV preachers who go over-board in their patriotic zeal for self defense and some kind of just-war principle."

I go on this understanding Ken. If you want to know about cars you don't go and ask the bread baker. I think anyone reading this who has any guts, nerve or integrity who wants to know about another faith's position (Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Sunni, Shi'ite, Salafi, Calvinist, Arminian) etc would do best to read books written by those people and go and speak with representatives of the various views and get the information straight "from the horses mouth" as they say.

Another thing that we like to do as Muslims and Christians which is a dishonest and sneaky tactic is to quote from Christian and Muslim sources of revelation or views from respected scholars and make it seem as if we are representing them fairly.

What happens more often than not is a sound bite is taken out of context that has a particular motive in mind that looks like it's being fair and representative of the other view but it is crafty in it's very intention.

Ken I have had many good exchanges between you and I hope that you and I can keep it to a level of earnest contention for our faiths and insightful apologetic. I do not wish that it descends into the realm of polemic because as the title of this blog shows...

I can and will go there too... May Allah open the breast of mankind and guide us all to what he loves. Ameen!