Saint Paul, the Apostle (Christian Apostle.) Cited Sources. --Encyclopedia Britannica. And, Zakaria Botros exposed! the most prevaricator that Christians consider a scholar. But, he is a liar.

Subject: Re: Saint Paul, the Apostle (Christian Apostle.) Cited Sources. --Encyclopedia Britannica. And, Zakaria Botros exposed! the most prevaricator that Christians consider a scholar. But, he is a liar.

Hello Mostafa,

Interesting post.  Here is something else to consider.  How easily will scholars in the year 4026 piece together an accurate picture of the world of 2013? 

The world in which Paul lived was no less complex.  Even though the "known world" was smaller, within that sprawling Empire and those lands surrounding it, were as many diverse people, cults, beliefs, intrigues and contrary writings. 

Certainly there is value to studying the ancient history.  But not if we are trying to prove our own beliefs.  All we are doing then is to participate in the twisting of history. 

We certainly can learn broad lessons from our studies, drawing information that could assist us in advancing the quality of life for Mankind.  But instead, we bicker over who said what, and whether this writer was the more reliable. 

To me, the Bible and the Koran, along with other Holy books, open windows into the past.  But they are a mixture of valuable information and imagined events.  These are not always easy to separate. 

While we do have writings by Paul, Jesus never put pen to parchment.  In fact, so much of these books were written down from reports passed from father to son, by mouth. 

Of course, the history students and scholars of 4026 will be both blessed and cursed by the mountains of recorded materials.  This will probably make their efforts to find "Truth" as difficult as we have because of too little written records. 

 

Carl Jarvis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Mostafa

To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 10:29 PM

Subject: Saint Paul, the Apostle (Christian Apostle.) Cited Sources. --Encyclopedia Britannica. And, Zakaria Botros exposed! the most prevaricator that Christians consider a scholar. But, he is a liar.

Dear all, upon you be peace and blessings. On today's post, we're going to formally refute what I received about misquoting Christianity. Well, here is an authenticated resource that proves this incorrect allegation.

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/447019/Saint-Paul-the-Apostle/259967/Sources

 

Saint Paul is undoubtedly one of the most important figures in the history of the Western world. Just a quick look at the headlines of his life are enough to understand his impact; his works are some of the earliest Christian documents that we have, 13 of the 27 books of the bible are written by him, and he's the hero of another, Acts of the Apostles.

Famously converted on the road to Damascus, he travelled tens of thousands of miles around the Mediterranean spreading the word of Jesus and it was Paul who came up with the doctrine that would turn Christianity from a small sect of Judaism into a worldwide faith that was open to all.

What we know about Paul comes from two extraordinary sources. The first is the Acts of the Apostles, written after Paul's death, almost certainly by the same author who wrote St Luke's gospel. There is evidence that Acts was written to pass on the Christian message, but behind the theology lie clues about Paul's life. The author of Acts claims that he knew Paul and even accompanied him on many of his journeys. The second source is Paul's own letters. They represent Paul's own version of events, and it seems reasonable to accept them as the more reliable account.

The one thing most people do know about St Paul is that he underwent a dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus. Precisely what happened has been hard to determine as the accounts in Acts and the letters differ on the details. For example, when St Paul talks about his conversion he makes no mention of a journey from Jerusalem to Damascus.

But behind the paradoxes and the puzzles, there are fascinating glimpses of the man. Reading Paul's letters and Acts of the Apostles we learn that Paul was born in Tarsus, in modern day Eastern Turkey, he was a tent maker by trade, was an avid student under the top Jewish teacher in Jerusalem and was also a Roman citizen. Here is a man who worked with his hands but wrote with the grace of a Greek philosopher; a Jewish zealot who nevertheless enjoyed the rights of citizenship in the world's greatest empire.

In his letters, we also discover the Paul who writes warmly of his friends, both men and women, the Paul who frets about how the members of his churches are coping without him and who defends their status as true converts and the Paul who appeals for the freedom of a slave. But like all great and charismatic figures there is another side; the Paul who berates his followers for backsliding and doubting; the Paul who tells women to keep silent and condemns homosexuality and the Paul who'll stand up to the Apostle Peter, one of the most senior ministers in the early church and call him a hypocrite to his face.

Academics are trying to piece together these scraps of information with a new technique that's rather like a combination of sociology and forensic anthropology. They've come up with a picture of Paul who'd be a man of his time and place; a hot headed Mediterranean who'd be quick to defend his honour and the honour of his followers, but who'd demand loyalty in return.

Paul wrote some of the most beautiful and important passages in the whole of the Bible, but his works have also been used, among other things, to justify homophobia, slavery and anti-Semitism. He has also been accused of being anti-feminist, although many modern scholars would argue that in fact he championed the cause of women church leaders. In the final analysis, Paul was the first great Christian theologian, establishing some of the building blocks of the faith that we now take for granted, though there are those who argue that in laying out these ground rules, Paul has obscured and separated us from the true teachings of Jesus. But perhaps the true sign of Paul's importance is that even nearly 2000 years after his death he still inspires passion; whatever you feel, it's hard to feel neutral about Paul. It's obvious that the subject is broadly controversial and quite awkward. Please, you may feel free to transmit these information to any biblical scholar whom you trust. Here it was the correct knowledge about what's academically identified as the Pauline bibliography and its associated forgeries. 

Now, let's talk about this vicious prevaricator,

Zakaria Botros'. For anti-islam missionaries and their supporters, he is considered a scholar of Islamic theology. But emphatically, he is  appallingly acrimonious beguiler , misrepresenter and deliberately he misquotes Islamic text for promoting theological suspicions among muslim masses. Well for instance, for those unaware, Father Zakaria Botros claimed the Prophet Muhammad had sexual relations with his dead aunt whilst in the grave. This was the talk of the town amongst the ignorant and malicious - they were joyfully peddling it quite insanely, and now they are realising it as a product of the sexually-fertile imagination of Father Zakaria Botros!

Summary of what the Prophet ACTUALLY did, (peace and blessings be upon him.)
Fatima bint Asad was the wife of Prophet Muhammad's uncle (Abu Talib). She, along with Abu Talib, took care of the Prophet after his grandfather passed away. Thus she was like a foster mother to the Prophet Muhammad.

The Prophet's aunt/foster mother passed away. He dug the grave himself. Once he completed the grave, the Prophet laid in the grave and prayed for his deceased aunt. His deceased aunt was NOT in the grave at the time according to the narration (below) and then the Prophet and his companions proceeded to perform the funeral ceremony. Afterwards, the blessed lady's body was lowered into the blessed grave. Of course, the fact Fatima bint Asad was buried in a grave the Prophet had laid in, was an honouring and a blessing for her – the same applies for her being dressed with the Prophet's shirt.

Certainly NO sexual relations took place. Sadly our debauched missionary (Father Zakaria Botros) advanced the fabrication of "sex with a dead person" as a product of his sexually-perverted mind.

An act of devotion

Sadly, this act of devotion on the part of the Prophet Muhammad for his aunt (she was the wife of Abu Talib and cared for the Prophet. A fuller account [square brackets denote explanation from me and emphasis is mine].


Anas bin Malik, Allah be pleased with [him], said: When Fatimah bint Asad bin Hisham, the mother of Ali died, (ra), the Messenger of Allah enter upon her [i.e. entered her house] and sat by her head and said: "May Allah have mercy on you, O my mother, you, after my mother, went hungry while you fed me. You were short of clothes while you clothed me. You denied yourself nice things while you provided me (with them) seeking by that the countenance of Allah and the Home of the Hereafter."


Thereafter, he ordered that she be washed three times. When they got to the point of using the water in which there is camphor, Allah's Messenger poured it with his own hand and then removed his shirt and dressed her in it and he shrouded her in a garment he was wearing. Then the Messenger of Allah called Usamah bin Zayd, Abu Ayyub Al Ansari, Umar bin Al-Khattab and two young black boys to dig her grave. When they got to the point of excavating the lahd, the Messenger of Allah dug it himself and scooped out sand with his own hands.


When Allah's Messenger finished, he entered the grave and lay in it [Thus the Prophet was in the grave ALONE] and said "O Allah, Who gives life and takes it, He is the living who never dies, forgive my mother, Fatimah bint Asad, and instruct her proof, and widen her entrance, by the right of your Prophet and all the Prophets before me for you are the Most Merciful of those who show mercy".

 He [Prophet Muhammad] made four takbir over her (i.e. during the funeral prayer) and he lowered her into her lahd [grave] along with Al-Abbas and Abu Bakr As-Siddiq. May Allah be pleased with them"

Al Haythami said: It is reported by At-Tabrani in Al Kabir and Al Awsat in its chain is Rawh ibn As Salah in whom is some weakness. However the rest of the narrators of the Hadith are trustworthy. Majmu No (15399)

Disturbed: Zakaria Botros

Summary

As you can see, this was a public funeral and the Prophet lay in the grave prior to lowering Fatima bint Asad into the blessed grave. There was no sexual relations at all. To suggest an act of necrophilia took place, in light of all this information, in full view of those present at the funeral, is offensively absurd to say the least, and it vividly reflects the mental illness of this deception owner and his venomous followers.

May Allah send his peace and blessings upon  Prophet Muhammad and all  other prophets. If you wish to receive a lengthy refutation of the necrophilia lie, please keep me informed.
So, for those who consider this oblivious of detest and foul spread a scholar, this lie exposure will put everything on its original spot. This just was a brief instance of how some radical missionaries falsely promote prevarications about Islam. Now, I would like to directly address my christian friends. I have to straightly clarify that I have no intention to convert you to Islam. I incisively emphasize that. I study about Christianity and I share my views with you while sticking to the principles of courtesy, ethical adherence, narrative accountability, and informative authenticity. We may either agree or disagree on the contents of my theological ascertions, but I for certain have not misquoted any Christian theological text. All of my sources are clearly cited. And you can go ahead and check that out. I am enormously enthusiastic to constantly seek for genuine knowledge about religions. And in particular, I am seeking the truth about this greatly tolerable and historically adaptable religion, Christianity. Domestically and abroad, I have many close christian friends whom I warmly love and deeply respect. I am quite positive to my Christian friends. But, noone can ever prevent me from developing a thesis statement on the subject. This should not cause  offence to anyone. Well infact, I was looking for a divinity school to resume my comparative theological studies. Can anyone guide me to a competent academy?                
I also have some questions in regards to the (New Testament) historical legitimacy. Have  you read the academical work of professor Bart Ehrman?    Professor Bart D. Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including three New York Times bestsellers: Misquoting Jesus, God's Problem and Jesus Interrupted.  

 

http://www.bartdehrman.com/books.htm

Professor Bart Ehrman is a devoutly former Christian minister. He didn't convert to Islam by the way. He is now an ignostic. Well, regardless of his current position on religions, he for certain is a scholarly knowledgeable individual on Biblical origin, biblical historical authenticity, and biblical periodical alterations that were occurred over different ages of Christian history. well, he is  a competent theologian on the subject. He talks on his written work about (New Testament) accounts clear contradictions and scriptural decisive discrepancies. Well, for instance; one of the clearly self-contradictory chronicles that professor Ehrman mentions in his informative criticism to the (New Testament), is what the four gospels have in record about Jesus crucifiction and resurrection. Is it a spiritual resurrection? or a spiritual and physical resurrection simultaneously? Furthermore, Professor Ehrman thoroughly examines the self-contradictory incidents that took place during Jesus resurrection. in the four gospels, each one presents a different story if you will. Names of some people who were there are different, and so what even occured before  other proceeding events, it's significantly self-contradictory as well, it doesn't match up at all. Well, you may wish to theologically reread that. But, don't look at the information stated therein from a devotional standpoint. You may rather attempt to critically reassess the biblical chronicles in regards to Jesus crucifiction and resurrection. I may rephrase that by saying, try to examine the story of Jesus crucifiction and resurrection authentically. One of the major doctrinal fundamentals that principely constitutes Christianity at its present form, is the trinity which lays over onto the top of current Christian tennets of faith. But further astonishingly, if we travelled throughout the bible entirely, we will never find the term trinity ever mentioned explicitly. Unless we somehow squeeze the biblical verses out, striving to implicitly derive our  applicable interpretation to meet our interest. And I tell you what, this is what Christians exactly tend, or maybe, to some certain extent, and by rational intense, forced to do. I apologize if my last statement caused unexpected inconvenience to my Christian friends. I am just attempting to make sense, in other words, I am studying Christianity to know what exactly happened to the documents of this religion which led it to perfectly depart the traditionally unitairian monotheistic practice, to ultimately be in the currently somehow polytheistic form. Well, I apologize again. That's just my humble opinion. I believe it advantageously has something to do with theological and political compounds. Well, that's all what I have for now, stay blessed, and have a good night. Mostafa.