Why the New Testament is not Reliable ? Dr. Bart Ehrman explains

Date of the Fourth Gospel !

The Date of the Gospel of John in the Scholarly Literature

            Needless to say, the pre-70 CE theory is not widely accepted by both Christian and secular scholars.  Most scholars date it to the late 1^st century CE, while some even date it to “around the turn of the second century”.[2]  Gary M. Burge states that:

“…we find a remarkable consensus of scholarly opinion that John was published somewhere between 80 and 100.”[3]

Similarly, Lamar Williamson suggests a date “near the end of the first century C.E.”[4]  This was echoed by the late D. Moody Smith Jr. in his commentary on the Gospel of John, while also considering the early second century as well.  According to Smith (emphasis in the original):

“[g]iven 110 as the latest possible date (terminus ante quem), we would then have a range of a couple of decades (90-110), within which John was likely written…”[5]

Another Christian scholar, the late Raymond Brown, believed the “final form” of the gospel was finished between 100-110 CE (and no later than 125), while the “main composition” was written around 90 CE.[6] 
            Indeed, most of the dates suggested by different scholars fall somewhere between the years 80-100, with different preferred ranges.  According to David Croteau (Liberty University), these include 80-85 (Carson, Köstenberger and others), 80-90 (Godet), 80-100 (Hendriksen), and 90-100 (Brown, Witherington and many others).[7]  For his own part, Croteau favors a date between 80-100 but “with the most likely time being toward the earlier side of that range”.[8]  Here is a graphical representation of the different dates given, according to Croteau’s list,[9] which shows the general consensus for a date sometime around the end of the first century (most favor a date between 90-100).  This also shows how difficult it is for scholars to come to any agreement on what the date actually was:


So it is clear that most scholars have preferred a date towards the end of the first century, and some prefer a date even into the early second century.[10]  In fact, more scholars favor a date after 100 CE than scholars who favor a pre-70 CE date.  So where does that leave the theory of the gospel being written before 70 CE?  One of the most vocal supporters of this theory is the contemporary NT scholar Daniel Wallace, who primarily rests his argument on the basis of one particular verse, John 5:2 (although it is certainly not the only reason).[11]

John 5:2 as Proof for a Pre-70 CE Date and Analysis

            John 5:2 states:

“Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda[a] and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.” (NIV)

Wallace is particularly interested in the phrase “there is”, which in Greek is ἐστί (e-stē’).[12]  He argues that the author wrote in the present tense, which implies that the “Sheep Gate” of the temple (and thus the temple itself) was still standing in his day.  This matters because both the gate and the pool at Bethesda were supposed to have been destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, along with the temple.  Thus, the argument goes, the gospel must have been written before the destruction of the temple and not after.

            While this argument may be plausible, there are still a few problems that cannot be explained.  First of all, just because the pool was in Jerusalem does not mean that it was destroyed along with the temple and its surrounding landmarks, or that it was destroyed and never rebuilt.  It is also possible that the author of the gospel could have simply been referring to the ruins of the pool.  Andreas Köstenberger, a Christian scholar, argues against using John 5:2 for dating the gospel to pre-70 CE on this basis.  He states that:

“…the reference could be to remains of the structure or the structure could have been rebuilt after being destroyed but prior to John’s writing…”[13]

This is also suggested by the text of the gospel itself, at least according to the New International Version translation.  Verse 3 is rendered as stating that people suffering from all manner of disabilities and illnesses “used to lie” in the pool, which implies that this was no longer the case in the author’s time:

“Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda[a] and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed.”[14]

Admittedly, other translations render the verse differently, which would not imply the past tense.  For example, the English Standard Version (ESV) renders the verse as:

“In these lay a multitude of invalids–blind, lame, and paralyzed.”

So we need to dig deeper.  As Köstenberger suggested, what if the author was really referring to the ruins of the pool, something people in his time would have been familiar with?  The ruins of the pool were well-known even to later Christians.  According to Titus Kennedy:

“Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, mentions the “sheep pool” not the sheep gate, and he identified it as a place of twin pools (Eusebius, Onomasticon). The Bordeaux Pilgrim in the early fourth century calls them twin pools but mentions no gate, while other writings of the fourth and fifth centuries also mention the site of the pool, demonstrating that the ruins of the pool were visited during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods (Itinerarium Burdigalense; Cyril of Jerusalem; Jerome).”[15]

So if the ruins were known for centuries after Jesus (peace be upon him), it seems plausible that the gospel was referring to those ruins as well.  In fact, it was well known to later Christians up until the 7^th century (during the Arab conquest), when the precise location of the pool was lost, only to be rediscovered by archaeologists in the 19^th century. 
            Moreover, some alternate versions of the text do indeed show that the author was writing in the past tense in the important second verse.  According to Benson’s Commentary (emphasis in the original):

“[t]he Syriac seems to have read, ην, there was, as it is rendered in that version in the past time. Cyril, Chrysostom, and Theophylact favour this reading, as also does Nonnus.”[16]

If this reading was correct,[17] then it follows that the author was indeed referring to the ruins of the pool, since he was implying that the pool was no longer used for such purposes, which could only have happened after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 
           
 The other problem is that the text of John 5:2 doesn’t even mention the word “gate”.  The Greek text has been described as “rather obscure”,[18] which has resulted in most translations simply assuming that the author spoke of the “Sheep Gate”, even though other translations are also possible (such as “Sheep market”).  As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) admits:

“[t]here is no noun with Sheep. “Gate” is supplied on the grounds that there must have been a gate in the NE wall of the temple area where animals for sacrifice were brought in…”[19]

According to D. Moody Smith, the obscurity may have been due to the simple matter of the author’s own uncertainty.  He explained that:

“…the roughness and difficulties arise from the fact that the narrative is here based on a more ancient tradition; perhaps the author himself was not fully conversant with the material he was using.”[20]

This may also explain the use of the phrase “there is in/at Jerusalem” in John 5:2.  It could merely have been a direct quote of the earlier source (see note #20) that the author was using and therefore not evidence that the entire gospel as it has reached us was actually written before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.  Indeed, if the author was an eyewitness and new the landmarks of Jerusalem quite well, why is the description so vague?   
            Despite these issues, it is still worthwhile to study the Greek phrase that has created so many disagreements between scholars.  As previously stated, Daniel Wallace is supportive of the idea that the verse seems to be in the present tense, which indicates that the author was writing at a time when the temple and its various “gates” were still standing (i.e. before 70 CE).  But most other scholars are not convinced.  The reason is of course that there are other factors to consider when trying to date the gospel itself.  On the basis of these other factors, most scholars are simply not persuaded by one verse to date the entire gospel. 
            The Greek ἐστί ἐν (“there is in/at”) is in the present tense.[21]  But most scholars regard it as a “historical present tense”.  Jason Kerrigan quotes none other than Daniel Wallace himself (emphasis in the original) to explain that:

“[t]he historical present is used fairly frequently in narrative literature to describe a past event…The reason for the use of the historical present is usually to portray an event vividly, as though the reader were in the midst of the scene as it unfolds.  […] The historic present may be used to describe a past event, either for the sake of vividness or to highlight some aspect of the narrative.”[22]

So even though the Greek phrase is in the present tense, it does not necessarily mean that the author was literally writing in the present tense as if the temple and the pool at Bethesda were still standing in his time.  Köstenberger has argued that John 10:8 and 19:40 serve as examples, similar to 5:2, of historical presents of εἰμί (“to be” or “to exist”).[23]  Nevertheless, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon includes John 5:2 among other verses where εἰμί is translated as “to be found” or “there was” though it still defines the etymology of εἰμί as:

“[t]he first person singular present indicative…”[24]

But Wallace has objected to the association of John 5:2, 10:8 and 19:40 as examples of historical presents of εἰμί.[25]  Nevertheless, Köstenberger maintains that “it is certainly possible” to use “a past-referring use of the present tense of [εἰμί]”.[26]  Croteau also identifies John 5:2 as “probable for inclusion” among a list of historical presents in the Gospel of John.[27]  He also includes John 19:40 in this list, but not John 10:8.  Mavis Leung also identifies John 5:2 as a historical present, though he acknowledges that it does not “fit neatly” into the “three main verbal categories: speaking, seeing and moving”.[28]  However, he does identify it as one of three “past-referring indicative verbs”, the others being found in John 20:6 and 21:22.[29]  Of course, it should be borne in mind that there is considerable debate about what constitutes a historical present, as we can already clearly see.  Leung counts 165 examples in the Gospel of John, whereas other counts have varied from 162 to 166.[30]  For his part, Wallace counts 162 examples, not including 5:2 of course.[31]  So it does not seem like there will be a breakthrough regarding the date of the fourth gospel on the basis of this verse alone.  Thus, perhaps more attention should be paid to other pieces of evidence when trying to date the fourth gospel.     
            Much such “evidence” has been presented from both liberal and conservative scholars, with many Christians obviously trying to prove the earliest possible date.  But David Croteau, much to his credit since he is a Christian himself, shows more caution.  He rejects most of the arguments for a pre-70 date, and favors a date between 80-100.[32]  Though he lists several arguments for a post-70 date, there are a few which appear stronger than others.  These are listed here:

1. Church fathers

            Ironically, Christian apologists tend to usually champion the record of the church fathers (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr etc.) as evidence of early Christian history, but in their zeal to assign the fourth gospel with as early a date as possible, some of them have decided to essentially ignore church tradition.  Though even some conservative scholars admit the “unreliability” of church tradition,[33] with regards to the fourth gospel, Croteau argues that “it is a relatively strong argument for dating the Gospel later rather than earlier”.[34]  D. Moody Smith pointed out that Irenaeus implied that “John the disciple” wrote the gospel “relatively late in the first century” during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan,[35] which then favors a date almost near the end of the 1^st century, since Trajan ruled from 98-117 CE.[36]  Also, as previously mentioned, Smith favored a date between 90-100.[37]          

2. John 6:1 and the “Sea of Tiberias”

            This is perhaps one of the strongest arguments for a later date.  As Croteau explains, the city of Tiberias was founded by Herod Antipas on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee between 17-18 CE.[38]  The Compact Bible Dictionary puts the date of its founding around 20 CE,[39] and Smith puts it in the “early 20s CE”.[40]  Finally, Gary Burge put its founding in the year 26.[41]  Regardless of when it was founded, historians generally agree that the Sea of Galilee did not become widely known as the “Sea of Tiberias” until much later in the 1^st-century,[42] and yet the fourth gospel uses the latter name in John 6:1 and 21:1.  Meanwhile, the Synoptic gospels exclusively refer to the “Sea of Galilee” and never the “Sea of Tiberias”.  This has led scholars to conclude that the fourth gospel must have been written much later, probably towards the end of the first century. 
            If the Gospel of John was written earlier (perhaps around the same time as the Synoptic gospels) or even a little later, we would not expect it to refer to the “Sea of Tiberias” instead of the “Sea of Galilee”.  It would be like if someone allegedly wrote a book about East Pakistan in 1947 (when Pakistan was founded) but referred to it as “Bangladesh”, which was the name it adopted in 1971 only after breaking away from West Pakistan.  One would have to conclude that the document was written much later than it was claimed.  The same conclusion would arise for the date of the fourth gospel (assuming if it was not redacted later) due to its reference to the Sea of “Tiberias” instead of the “Sea of Galilee”.                    

3. John 20:28 and Domitian as Dominus et Deus

            The final piece of evidence to favor a late 1^st-century date for the composition of the fourth gospel comes from John 20:28, in which Thomas referred to the resurrected Jesus as “My Lord and My God”.  Besides being one of the few verses in the entire New Testament where Jesus (peace be upon him) is clearly seen as divine (which puts the fourth gospel at odds with the Synoptics), this particular verse may be a good indicator for the date of the fourth gospel.  Scholars note that there just happened to be a conflict between Christians and the Roman Imperial Cult right around the end of the first century, and especially during the reign of Domitian who ruled the empire from 81-96 CE.[43]  According to the Roman historian Seutonius, Domitian required his subjects to refer to him as “Lord and God” (“Dominus et Deus”), whether in writing or direct conversation.[44]  So was John 20:28 an attack on Domitian’s imperial cult?  As Croteau explains, Domitian’s demands would not have begun until at least 81 CE, which:

“…likely accounts for why the Evangelist chose to include Thomas’s words…”[45]

Of course, there was nothing unusual in Domitian demanding that he be worshiped.  Previous emperors were also objects of worship.  As Professor Paul Trebilco states:

“…there is no evidence that Domitian demanded greater divine honours than his predecessors…”[46]

But by specifically demanding that he be referred to as “Lord and God” in written or verbal correspondence, Domitian was unique among the emperors.  Thus, it is possible that the author of the fourth gospel used Thomas’ reaction to the resurrected Jesus as a direct act of defiance against Domitian’s decree specifically or against the Roman imperial cult in general.[47] 

Conclusion

            Given these strong and compelling arguments, it seems prudent to stick with the current near-consensus regarding the date of the Gospel of John.  A date near the end of the 1^st century indeed seems most likely.  We have seen that John 5:2 has other explanations, even if it was not meant to be in the historical present tense.  Moreover, other pieces of evidence strongly outweigh John 5:2 as far as determining the date. 

Addendum: A Brief Discussion of Authorship

            It was not the purpose of this article to discuss the issue of authorship, but it is an important issue.  Here, we will provide a brief overview.
            Church tradition maintains that the fourth gospel was written in Ephesus near the end of the 1^st-century (a view which seems to align with the internal evidence, at least with regard to the time period),[48] but equally importantly, it maintains that the author was an eyewitness and disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him), whose name was John (the son of Zebedee).  But whereas the evidence for the date of composition seems to support church tradition, the evidence for authorship is flimsy at best.  In his commentary on the Gospel of John, the late D. Moody Smith explained that there are “as many reasons for doubting Johannine authorship as for embracing it”.[49] 
            First and foremost is the fact that the gospel does not state who the author is.  It is anonymous (more on this later).  Second, it is possible that the author was simply another “John” who later became confused with John the disciple.  It was claimed by Eusebius that Papias had claimed that the author was a certain “John the Elder”, who had known Jesus and heard him teach.[50]  Yet even this theory clearly suffers from the same problem as claiming that the author was John the son Zebedee.  It is all hearsay.  Smith refers to it as “at best a reasonable conjecture based on bits and pieces of evidence”.[51] 
            Another difficulty in assigning authorship to John is the claim that he wrote the gospel while residing in Ephesus.  Here, church tradition seems to have muddied the water.  While Irenaeus claimed the gospel was written in Ephesus, an earlier source, Ignatius of Antioch, did not mention that John resided at Ephesus at any time.  Smith observed that Ignatius “makes a great deal of the apostle Paul’s residence there, but, strangely, does not mention John”.[52]  To make matters worse, neither the New Testament nor any early 2^nd-century Christian document puts John in Ephesus.[53]
            Finally, in an interesting analysis of chapter 20, Smith argued that the author intentionally remained anonymous.  Smith also surmised that if any of the disciples of Jesus qualified as the “beloved disciple”, it would have been Thomas, not John.[54]  Since chapter 21 seems to be a later addition,[55] and since Thomas is the last disciple mentioned at the end of chapter 20, it follows then he should qualify as the “beloved disciple”, at least in the “original” ending of the gospel.  Even if chapter 21 was the original ending, Smith, quoting David R. Beck (who believed 21:24-25 was the end of the gospel), notes that there is simply no specific disciple who is identified as the “beloved disciple”, so that “he remains anonymous, as the evangelist intended”.[56]  But if the author really was John the son of Zebedee or any other disciple, why did he go out of his way to remain anonymous?  If anything, it would bolster the credibility and authority of the gospel to directly name a specific disciple, but instead, the author deliberately decided to be anonymous.  It does not make much sense.  Therefore, in the absence of any conclusive evidence, the theory of Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel stands on thin ice.  Most likely, it was just a misattribution, as with the Synoptics.
And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!

Source

The Victory of the Byzantine: Fulfilled Quranic prophecy !

In Quran, Allah Almighty promised to make the Romans be victorious over the Persians just to please the Prophet and the Believers. And this Divine Prophecy and Promise indeed did come to pass after several years!

The Qur’an predicted an event impossible of occurrence: it will happen in less than ten years. The Qur’an had put itself and Prophet Muhammad to test. The Revelation said,

“The Romans have been defeated, in (the land) lowest on earth. But after (this) defeat of theirs they will soon be victorious. Within a few years. With Allah is the decision, in the past and in the future. On that day shall the faithful rejoice” (Al-Rum: 2-4).

Even Edward Gibbon himself testifies in "The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire"
:
“At the time when the prediction is said to have been delivered, no prophecy could be more distant from its accomplishment, since the first twelve years of Heraclius announced the approaching dissolution of the empire.”

http://islamicencyclopedia.org/islamic-pedia-topic.php?id=814#A-Prediction

Newton’s position towards the Trinity !

The English physicist Isaac Newton is considered one of the most influential scientists of all time because of his theories and findings which people consider as great scientific discoveries until this day.

Yet, there is something about Newton which is unknown as it was never under the spotlight despite its importance, i.e. his position towards the Trinity, an aspect that categorizes Christianity the most. This position almost cost him his life.

So, what is Newton’s position towards the Trinity?

What are the reasons for this position?

What was his view about God?

How did the Trinity intervene into the Christian belief from Newton’s point of view?

E-Book: "Renounce Your Atheism" !

"Renounce Your Atheism"

Link

 Full PDF

https://files.fm/u/eqfyhqkh

 Audiobook

By Mr. Lou lambert

German translation (PDF): "Befreie dich von deinem Atheismus"

http://www.mediafire.com/file/husk7uog3u78kcn/Befreie-dich-von-deinem-Atheismus+2018_aktuelle+Version.pdf

Original Arabic version (PDF):
http://www.mediafire.com/file/3ndvddfji8dn666/%D8%AA%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%B5.pdf

Is Jesus God ? (Ultimate proof)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiWjIopJQ4Y

A Summarized Proof for Islam

By Karkooshy

Introduction

All praise is due to Allah Lord of the worlds, and peace be upon our noble messenger Muhammed ﷺ. What follows is a summarized proof for Islam, simplified for average readers.

The key to Islam is the testimony of faith, which is to bear witness that there is only One God and that Muhammed ﷺ is His messenger. Accordingly, the foundational claims of Islam are three: that God exists, that God is One, that Muhammed ﷺ is a prophet of God.


Section 1 - The World is Emergent

The existence of God is established by realizing that the bodies that make up the observable world around us, are all emergent. This necessitates the existence of a being that brought them into existence.

“Emergent” meaning: their existence is preceded by their non-existence. In other words, they began to exist. That which is emergent will be called an “event”.

“Body” meaning: that with dimensions (a height, width or depth) stretched out in space. Like stars, planets, mountains, oceans, plants, animals, humans...etc.

All bodies are emergent because the alternative is absurd. The alternative being the existence of a body that is beginningless.

It is impossible for a beginningless body to exist, because a body is inseparable from either the state of motion, or the state of rest. Meaning: it is impossible for a body to be neither at rest nor moving. So if a beginningless body existed, it would either have been:

1. moving for eternity past
2. at rest for eternity past
3. alternating between motion and rest for eternity past

All three of the above is impossible, and that which entails impossibility is impossible. So it is impossible for a beginningless body to exist. Proof for the impossibility of each category follows below.

(1) a body that was moving for eternity past

This is impossible because the state of motion exists contingently for a body. Meaning: a body that is moving, could have been not-moving. Since the state of motion exists contingently, this means it was brought into existence by some specifier that selected motion over the possible alternative. And since the state of motion was brought into existence, it could not have been beginningless. Therefore a body moving for eternity past is impossible.

It is also impossible for a body to have been moving for eternity past, because motion is the body changing its location over time. Every transition from one location to another is an event in time, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past. And since the number of events in the past is finite, it is the case that the state of motion is emergent.



The statement: “it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past” is true because “infinite” is equivalent to endlessness, while “completed” is equivalent to coming to an end. Therefore, an infinite sequence of events cannot be completed, since that is contradictory. It is like saying an endlessness came to an end. For this same reason, it is impossible for someone to finish counting all the negative numbers and finally reach zero. There’s an infinite number of negative numbers, you cannot “finish” counting them all.

(2) a body that was at rest for eternity past

This is impossible for the same two reasons the first category was impossible.

The state of rest exists contingently. A body that is at rest, could have been not-resting. Accordingly, the state of rest could not have been beginningless.

It is also impossible for a body to be at rest for eternity past, because rest is the body maintaining its same location over time. Every moment the body remains at rest in, is an event in time. And it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past.

(3) a body that was alternating between motion and rest for eternity past

This is impossible because each alternation from one state to another is an event in time, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past.

Therefore, All Bodies are Emergent

Given the impossibility of the three categories, it is the case that all bodies are emergent. This means all those bodies that make up the world around us - the sun, the moon, the trees..etc. - began to exist. From there, we can deduce the existence of God.


Section 2 - The Existence of God

“God” meaning: the beginningless creator.

The emergence of all bodies necessitates the existence of a being that brought those bodies into existence. Let’s call this being “the creator”, since this being brings things into existence (and this is what “create” means).

The creator that brought those bodies into existence is either without beginning, or is emergent.

If the creator is without beginning, then the existence of God is established. Since a beginningless creator is what we intend when we say “God”.

If the creator is emergent, then this creator would itself be contingent upon a second creator to have brought it into existence. This could not have regressed to the past infinitely, as that necessitates the completion of an infinite number of past events (which is impossible, as detailed above). It is therefore the case that a beginningless creator necessarily exist.

Therefore, God necessarily exists.

It is also necessary that the Creator of the emergent world be attributed with the ability to bring the emergent world into existence. Otherwise, there would be no sense in Him being the “Creator”. This ability to bring things into existence is what we call “Power”.

God also, cannot be a mechanical cause for the existence of the world (such that the effect only exists because the cause exists), since God is beginningless while the world is emergent (a beginningless mechanical cause, would instead yield a beginningless effect). It is therefore necessary that the Creator of the emergent world be attributed with a quality that allows Him to select existence for this specific world (with all its specific properties) over the possible alternatives. This attribute is what is called “Will”.

God is also necessarily attributed with Knowledge. In order for a being to volitionally select one choice over others, this being must possess knowledge of those choices. As such, it is impossible for a being attributed with Will to not also be attributed with Knowledge. And since the Creator is necessarily attributed with Will, He is therefore necessarily attributed with Knowledge.


Section 3 - God is One

God is necessarily One because the alternative is absurd. The alternative being a multiplicity of creators.

If there was a second creator, then this second creator would either:

1. be able to disagree with the first creator.
2. be unable to disagree with the first creator.

Both of the categories listed above are impossible. And that which entails impossibility is impossible. So if we can demonstrate the impossibility of the two categories, we can demonstrate the impossibility of partnership to the Creator.

(1) The second creator is able to disagree with the first creator

This is impossible because possibilities are mutually exclusive with their negations. So if the two creators could disagree with one another, this would lead to contradiction.

For example: suppose there were two creators, and suppose the existence of some body. If we believe that those creators could disagree: this means one creator can move the body, while the other creator can keep the body at rest. Obviously however, this body cannot be both at rest and in motion (since rest and motion are mutually exclusive).

(2) the second creator is unable to disagree with the first creator

This is impossible because it means this second creator is forced to agree with the other. This entails contingency, which is impossible for a beginningless Creator who is necessarily non-contingent.

For example: suppose there were two creators, and suppose the existence of some body. If we believe that those creators could not disagree: this means that if the first creator moved the body, the second creator cannot keep the body at rest. This second creator is helpless, weaker than the first, and forced to comply with what the first creator decides. It means this second creator’s will and power have been specified by the will and power of the first creator, and this is impossible.

Therefore, God is One

The impossibility of both categories was demonstrated above. Therefore, it is impossible for there to exist a partner to the One Creator. All events that emerge into existence, emerge by this One Creator’s Will and Power, and no one else’s.


Section 4 - Prophethood

God can choose to reveal certain commandments to a single man so that this man can then deliver those commandments to the rest of mankind. This is possible for God to do (not necessary nor impossible). This man would be called a prophet.

To convince mankind that a claimant to prophethood is truthful, God can aid this prophet with miracles. A miracle is an extraordinary event that God aids His prophet with in order to prove this prophet’s truthfulness to doubters. It is equivalent to God saying: “this man has told the truth about Me.” As such, if we know a miracle occurred for some claimant to prophethood, then we can know that this claimant to prophethood is truthful. A useful analogy to help conceptualize this:

Imagine you were attending an important gathering at the Royal Palace. In the throne-room, you see the King sitting atop his throne. Surrounding the King are his guards, his viziers, as well as the noblemen of the kingdom.

Suddenly a Stranger enters the throne-room, and begins offering a declaration to the crowd in a loud and clear voice. Everyone else falls silent and listens to this Stranger’s speech. The Stranger begins: “O people, I am a messenger from your King to you.” The Stranger points to the King, who is sitting on the throne in front of him. The Stranger continues: “The words which I will speak to you are not my own, but are the words of your King who sent me. Whatever I command, I command in your King’s name. And whatever I forbid, I forbid in your King’s name.”

You notice that the King is silently sitting on his throne. The King is looking directly at this Stranger. He can clearly hear this Stranger make those claims. With a gesture of his hand, the King could order the guards to seize this Stranger and behead him where he stands to prove that he is a liar. But the King does not do that. The King continues to silently listen to the Stranger’s declaration.

The Stranger continues: “Whoever obeys those commandments which I will deliver to you from your King, the King has promised to reward graciously tomorrow morning. And whoever disobeys those commandments, the King has threatened to behead tomorrow morning…”

The King is still silently listening to the Stranger make his claims.

The Stranger finishes his declaration by saying: “…And to prove that I really am a messenger from the King, the King has told me that he would stand up and then sit down three times consecutively after I complete this sentence.”

Once the Stranger completes this sentence, all eyes turn to the King. Suddenly the King - and without uttering a word to the crowd - stands up then sits down, then stands up then sits down, then stands up then sits down.

Now we ask: at this moment, and after witnessing what transpired in this gathering, can there be any doubt that this Stranger is a true messenger from the King? No. The sincere truth-seeker would hold no doubt. Even if the King verbally declared “He is my messenger” then this would not have been any more convincing. Rather, an observer to this scene would attain certainty that the Stranger was a messenger from the King.

The King standing up and sitting down three times consecutively, was an extraordinary event that occurred upon the request of the Stranger who claimed to have been a messenger from the King. By knowing that this extraordinary event occurred, one attains certainty that this Stranger was indeed telling the truth. Similarly, we can be certain that a claimant to prophethood is truthful if this claimant is aided by an extraordinary event (i.e. a miracle).


Section 5 - The Prophethood of Muhammed

We can know with certainty that Muhammed ﷺ is a Prophet of God. This knowledge is established by Mass Transmitted proofs.

Information relayed to us by Mass Transmission provides certainty because it is inconceivable for those relaying this information to all get together and conspire to tell the same lie. For example: a man today might not have personally visited Japan. However, this man can be certain that a country called Japan actually exists. This is because the information relayed to this man about Japan reached him from so many different sources, that it becomes inconceivable for all those people to have gotten together in a grand conspiracy to lie about the existence of Japan.

We know Muhammed ﷺ claimed prophethood by Mass Transmission.

We know Muhammed ﷺ is a true Prophet for several reasons, all supported by Mass Transmission. Three of which include:

5.1 The Quran

Muhammed ﷺ was aided with the Quran, which is a miracle in its own right. And a claimant to prophethood, who is aided by a miracle, is certainly a prophet.

The Quran is a literary miracle. The language of the Quran is unlike any other Arabic text. Linguistically, it is vastly superior to anything that came before it, and vastly superior to everything that came after.

The non-Arabic speaker might not be able to directly appreciate why the Quran is linguistically miraculous, but they can indirectly deduce this by considering the following facts:

First: the Quran challenges the reader to produce a Chapter like it . This is a challenge that the Quran lays out for anyone who doubts its miraculousness. We know for certain that the Quran actually made this challenge, because we know the Quran has been preserved throughout history. We know it has been preserved, because it reached us by way of Mass Transmission.

Second: the Arabs of Muhammed’s ﷺ time were expert poets. Likely, the best in the Arabic language in all of history. The Arabic language became diluted over time as Islam spread around the world. Non-Arabs learning Arabic were often not as proficient as native speakers, and quirky dialects for the language emerged all over the Muslim world. It is unlikely that Arabic - as a commonly spoken language - will ever return to the pristine condition it once enjoyed during the years of pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabia. All of the above is known by Mass Transmission. To this day, Arabic linguists use pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry as a template for grammatical and linguistic rules.

Third: the pagan Arabs of Muhammed’s ﷺ time were heavily invested in destroying Islam, and disproving the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ. This is also known by Mass transmission. It is common knowledge that Muhammed ﷺ fought many wars against the Pagans.

From the above, one can deduce the following: if the pagan Arabs were truly capable of fulfilling the Quranic challenge, and given their extreme desire to destroy Islam, they would have saved themselves the time, money, and manpower, and they would have simply cooperated with each other in order to produce a text which rivaled the Quran linguistically. But they did not, and Islam ultimately prevailed (this is also known by Mass Transmission). And this is despite the poetic proficiency of the pagan Arabs.

With the above, the miraculousness of the Quran’s language can be appreciated, even by the non-Arabic speaker.

5.2 Physical Miracles

Muhammed ﷺ was aided by many physical miracles. Miracles including accurately prophesying future events, multiplication of food and water, and instantaneously healing wounds. In totality, there are hundreds upon hundreds of different narrations reporting the miracles Muhammed ﷺ was aided with.

All those miracles, when taken collectively, provide Mass Transmitted proof that Muhammed ﷺ was aided by some miracle. And a claimant to prophethood, who is aided by a miracle, is certainly a prophet.

5.3 His Life

The Prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ can also be established by considering his life.

Either Muhammed ﷺ was sincere, or he was a liar. “Sincere” meaning: he truly believed that he was recieving revelation from God. “Liar” meaning: he knew that he was not receiving revelation from God, and deliberately lied by claiming that he was.

The second option (that he was a deliberate liar) is certainly false, so the first (that he was sincere) is certainly true. We know the second option is false, because we know (by Mass Transmission) that Muhammed ﷺ refused bribery and suffered through hardship in order to deliver the message of Islam. Muhammed ﷺ suffered persecution in Mecca. He risked his life fighting many wars to defend the cause of Islam. He also lived humbly, spending all his wealth to serve the religion. Those are not the qualities of a liar.

We can only conclude that Muhammed ﷺ was - at the very least - personally convinced that he was a Prophet.

Given Muhammed’s ﷺ sincerity: either he was a true Prophet, or he was madman. “True Prophet” meaning: He truly believed to have been communicating with God, and he actually was communicating with God. “Madman” meaning: He truly believed to have been communicating with God, but he actually was not communicating with God (i.e. he was a madman who was just hearing voices in his head, a man who thought himself a prophet when he actually wasn’t).

The second option (that he was a madman) is certainly false, so the first (that he was a true Prophet) is certainly true. We know the second option is false, because we know (by Mass Transmission) that Muhammed ﷺ was an exceedingly successful man. To assume he was successful because of his madness (i.e. because of the voices in his head) is especially ludicrous. Muhammed ﷺ started out his life as an orphan without anything, and ended his life as ruler over all of Arabia. He was a military genius, diplomat and the leader of a successful nation. His Companions were able to - thanks to his leadership and example - conquer the two super powers of the world in their time (the Sassanids, and the Byzantines).

It is inconceivable that someone as successful as Muhammed ﷺ was a madman. It is especially inconceivable that such a man was successful because of his madness. Therefore, we can only conclude that he truly was a Prophet of God.


Section 6 - The Rest of Revelation

Now that the existence and Oneness of God was established, and the Prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ was established, it becomes incumbent upon the sane and mature person to affirm everything that can be reliably traced back to Prophet Muhammed ﷺ.

The sane and mature person must believe in: the finality of prophethood with Prophet Muhammed ﷺ, the day of resurrection, in the eternal reward for the believers, in the eternal punishment of the disbelievers, as well as belief in anything else that can be reliably traced back to the Prophet ﷺ.

The sane and mature thinker must also submit to the Law that the Prophet ﷺ delivered from Allah سبحانه و تعالى (the name of God according to revelation), and instructed mankind to abide by.


Conclusion

The three core claims that the Islamic faith is founded upon have been proven above. The three claims being: the existence of God, the Oneness of God, and the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ. Examining the arguments offered above in more depth, can also provide proof against many of the false religions in the world today.

And Allah سبحانه و تعالى is the one who guides and leads astray. With His mercy, He guides whomsoever He wills from the darkness of disbelief and ignorance, to the light of faith and knowledge.