Monday, March 29, 2010

Muhammad: Parecletos ba?

MAGANDA po at NAGLALAGAY DITO itong MGA BALIK ISLAM ng mga KASINUNGALINGANG ARAL NILA para po natin MASURI at MAITUWID.

Tingnan po natin ang ilan at atin pong sagutin.

Sabi po ng BALIK ISLAM na nagko-quote sa KWENTISTA NILANG si AHMED DEEDAT.

MUHUMMED (PBUH) IS THE "PARACLETE"

To the sincere seekers of Truth it is obvious that Muhummed (pbuh) is the promised Paraclete or Comforter, alternatively called Helper, Advocate, Counsellor, etc of the prophecies of Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospel of St. John.


TAMA po ba ang sinasabi nitong si AHMED DEEDAT na ang propeta nilang si MUHAMMAD ang PARACLETOS?

HINDI po. MALI po itong MUSLIM na TAGAGAWA ng KWENTO ng mga BALIK ISLAM.

Ang PARACLETOS po ay ang ESPIRITU SANTO at MALIWANAG po iyan sa MISMONG TALATA na NASA BIBLIYA.

Heto po ang mga talata kaugnay diyan:

1.John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another COUNSELOR [PARACLETOS sa GRIEGO] to be with you forever—


2.John 14:26
But the COUNSELOR [PARACLETOS sa GRIEGO], the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.


3.John 15:26
"When the COUNSELOR [PARACLETOS sa GRIEGO] comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.


4.John 16:7
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the COUNSELOR [PARACLETOS sa GRIEGO] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.



Sa Jn 14:26 at Jn 15:26 ay NAPAKALINAW po na ang PARACLETOS o COUNSELOR ay ang "HOLY SPIRIT" o ang "SPIRIT OF TRUTH."

PAANO po magiging si MUHAMMAD iyan kung ESPIRITU ang TINUTUKOY?

ESPIRITU po ba ang PROPETA ng ISLAM?

MALINAW po na HINDI.

So, DIYAN pa lang po ay SABLAY na AGAD ang PAG-ANGKIN nitong KWENTISTA ng ISLAM sa kung SINO ang PARACLETOS.

KITANG-KITA po ang PAGSISINUNGALING ni DEEDAT at ng BALIK ISLAM kaugnay diyan.



Heto pa po.

Sabi sa Jn14:16, ang PARACLETOS ay MAKAKASAMA ng mga ALAGAD ni KRISTO sa HABANG PANAHON.

NASAAN na po ang PROPETA ng ISLAM?

WALA na po. PATAY na po KASI.

HINDI na SIYA KASAMA kahit ng mga MUSLIM.

So, PAANO pong SIYA ang PARACLETOS na TINUTUKOY riyan?

MULI, MALINAW na PANG-AANGKIN ng HINDI KANILA ang SINASABI ni DEEDAT.



Pangatlo po, sabi sa Jn 14:26, ang PARACLETOS ay SUSUGUIN ng AMA "SA NGALAN" ni HESUS.

Noon po bang LUMITAW ang PROPETA ng ISLAM ay NANGARAL SIYA "SA NGALAN" ng PANGINOONG HESUS?

HINDI po.

So, PALPAK NA NAMAN po ang PAG-ANGKIN na IYAN ng KWENTISTA ng BALIK ISLAM.



Pang-apat, sinasabi rin po sa Jn 14:26 na ang PARACLETOS "will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

ITINURO po ba ng PROPETA ng ISLAM ang LAHAT ng BAGAY at IPINAALALA po ba NIYA ang LAHAT ng SINABI ni KRISTO sa MGA ALAGAD?

HINDI po. Sa KABALIKTARAN po ay BINAGO PA ng PROPETA ng ISLAM ang mga ARAL na IBINIGAY ng PANGINOONG HESUS.

Halimbawa po, ITINURO ng PANGINOONG HESUS na SIYA ay DIYOS (Jn8:58, Exodus 3:14-15). BINAGO po IYAN ng PROPETA ng ISLAM at SINABI na HINDI raw DIYOS ang PANGINOONG HESUS.

ITINURO rin po ng PANGINOONG HESUS na MAYROONG AMA, ANAK at ESPIRITU SANTO o ang TRINIDAD (Matthew 28:19). BINAGO rin po IYAN ng PROPETA ng ISLAM at ITINAKWIL PA.

NAPAKARAMI pa pong MGA ARAL ang PANGINOONG HESUS na sa halip na IPAALALA ng PROPETA ng ISLAM ay BINAGO pa NIYA.

So, LALAPAT po ba sa PROPETA ng ISLAM ang pagiging PARACLETOS?

HINDI po.

MALAYONG-MALAYO.

Sa GUNI-GUNI LANG po ni DEEDAT iyan NANGYARI.



Sabi po ng PANGINOONG HESUS sa Jn 16:7 na ISUSUGO NIYA ang PARACLETOS.

KAHIT KAILAN po ay NEVER SINABI ng PROPETA ng ISLAM na "SINUGO AKO NI HESUS."

WALA po NIYAN.

Muli po ay MAKIKITA NATIN na GAWA-GAWA LANG ng KWENTISTANG MUSLIM ang CLAIM na IYAN.



Sa MADALING SALITA po ay WALANG BASIS o WALANG BATAYAN ang MGA KWENTO nitong si AHMED DEEDAT. Iyan po ay isang ILUSYON.

Tulad po ng mga SCHOLAR ng ISLAM na NAGSINUNGALING na "LIBRO" raw ang IBINIGAY sa KANILANG PROPETA ay BINALUKTOT DIN LANG ni DEEDAT ang KATOTOHANAN para MAPALABAS ang GUSTO NIYANG PALABASIN.



Ngayon, para po MAIPILIT na ang PROPETA NILA ang PARACLETOS ay GUMAWA po ng NAPAKAHABANG PALIWANAG itong si AHMED DEEDAT na WALA rin namang PINUNTAHAN. WALA ring NAPATUNAYAN.

Ang lumalabas pong LAYUNIN NIYA sa KILO-KILOMETRO niyang PALIWANAG ay PARA MAIPALUSOT ang MALI NIYANG PANINIWALA na ang "HOLY SPIRIT" ay "HOLY PROPHET."

Heto po ang KONKLUSYON ni DEEDAT na HINUGOT NIYA sa KANYANG GUNI-GUNI:

"HOLY SPIRIT" IS HOLY PROPHET

(i) It may be noted that no Biblical scholar of any standing has ever equated the "paracletos" of John in the original Greek with the Holy Ghost. Now we can say with one breath that if the Comforter is the "Holy Spirit" then that Holy Spirit is the Holy Prophet!


Pagkatapos ng WALANG BATAYANG PANINIWALA NIYANG IYAN ay ITINULOY NIYA ang TILA WALANG KATAPUSANG PALABOK ng KANYANG KWENTO.

Tapos ay BIGLA NIYANG IPINASOK ang ARAL NIYANG ITO:

"SPIRIT" AND "PROPHET" SYNONYMOUS

Howbeit when he, the Spirit Of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth

(Holy Bible) John 16:13

It has already been established that. Biblically, the word "Spirit" is used synonymously for "Prophet," by the same author in 1 John 4: 1 (as seen earlier).

Hence the "Spirit of Truth" would be the Prophet of Truth. A prophet in whom Truth is personified. He had walked through life so honourably and industriously that he had won for himself even from his pagan fellow countrymen the noble designation of as-Saadiq (the Truthful One) and al-Amin, "the Honest," "the Upright." "the Trustworthy;" the Man of Faith who never broke his word. His life, his personality, his teachings are the veritable proof of Muhummed (pbuh) being the embodiment of Truth (al-Amin) — the Spirit of Truth!


HA? SAAN GALING ITO?

Sa ANONG IMAHINASYON NIYA HINUGOT ang PANINIWALA NIYA na "SPIRIT" AND "PROPHET" SYNONYMOUS"?

WALA pong GANYAN.

BIGLA lang NIYANG IPINASOK IYAN na WALA SIYANG NAIPAKITANG BATAYAN sa SINABI NIYA.

Subukan po NINYONG BASAHIN ang NAPAKAHABA NIYANG KWENTO kaugnay DIYAN at WALA KAYONG MAKIKITANG BATAYAN na ang "SPIRIT" ay KASING KAHULUGAN ng "PROPETA."

IMBENTO lang po IYAN ni DEEDAT.

GINAWA IYAN ng KWENTISTANG MUSLIM para lang po MAISINGIT NIYA ang PROPETA NILA sa DEFINITION ng PARACLETOS o SPIRIT.

HINDI na NAHIYA ITONG DEEDAT na ITO. HINDI rin SIYA NATAKOT na PILIT NIYANG ISINASAKSAK ang KANILANG PROPETA sa TALATA na HINDI HINDI NAMAN LAPAT sa KANYA.

Basta lang SIYA MAKAGAWA ng KWENTO kahit PALSO ay GAGAWIN NIYA MAPALABAS lang ang KASINUNGALINGAN na GUSTO NIYANG IPILIT.



Ngayon, para naman po MAPALABAS NIYA na HINDI ang ESPIRITU SANTO ang TINUTUKOY na PARACLETOS ay sinabi ni DEEDAT:

ADVENT OF COMFORTER CONDITIONAL

(iii) The Comforter is definitely not the "Holy Ghost" because the coming of the Comforter was conditional whereas that of the Holy Ghost was not as we observe in the prophecy —

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go for If I Go Not Away, The Comforter Will Not Come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

(HOLY BIBLE) John 16: 7

"lf I don't go he won't come, but if I go, I will send him." There are numerous instances in the Holy Bible about the coming andgoing of the HOLY GHOST, before the birth and departure of the Messiah. Do yourself a favour, please verify these references in your Bible -

B.C. BEFORE CHRIST'S BIRTH:

1. ... and he (John the Baptist) shall be
filled with the Holy Ghost,
even from his mother's womb.
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 1: 15

2. ... and Elizabeth was filled
with the Holy Ghost.
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 1: 41

3. And his father Zacharias was
filled with the Holy Ghost.
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 1:67

A.C. AFTER CHRIST'S BIRTH:

4. ... and the Holy Ghost was upon him (Simeon).
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 2:26

5. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily
shape like a dove upon him (Jesus).
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 3:22


Diyan po ay GUSTONG PALABASIN ng KWENTISTANG MUSLIM na "DUMATING NA" ang ESPIRITU SANTO. Ayan nga raw po sa PAGDAPO sa mga TAO na BINANGGIT sa ITAAS.



GANOON? Ang PAGDAPO po ba ng ESPIRITU SANTO sa mga INDIBIDWAL na BINANGGIT sa ITAAS ay ang PAGDATING na ng ESPIRITU SANTO kaya hindi na SIYA ang SINABING IPADADALA ayon sa John 14:16,John 14:26, John 15:26 at John 16:7?

MALI na naman po ITONG KWENTISTA ng BALIK ISLAM.

Kung papansinin po ninyo, ang PAGDAPO ng ESPIRITU SANTO sa mga NASA ITAAS ay SA MGA INDIBIDWAL LANG at HINDI sa BUONG SAMBAYANAN ng DIYOS.

Sa kabaliktaran, ang SINASABIHAN ng PANGINOONG HESUS sa John 14:16, John 14:26, John 15:26 at John 16:7 ay MGA ALAGAD NIYA. Sa MARAMI at HINDI sa IISA.

Sa mga PAGDAPO ng ESPIRITU SANTO sa mga HALIMBAWANG IBINIGAY ni DEEDAT, ang LAYUNIN ay para GUMAWA ng BAGAY na PARTIKULAR sa ISANG TAO.

IBANG-IBA sa MISYON ng ESPIRITU SANTO sa John 14:16,John 14:26, John 15:26 at John 16:7. Diyan po, ang GAWAIN ng ESPIRITU ay PARA SA BUONG SAMBAYANAN ng DIYOS.

Sa madaling salita po ay MAGKAIBA ang KONTEKSTO ng PAGBABA ng ESPIRITU SANTO sa mga BINANGGIT ni DEEDAT KUMPARA sa KONTEKSTO ng PAGSUSUGO sa ESPIRITU SANTO sa MGA ALAGAD.

Kaya SABLAY po TALAGA itong KWENTISTANG MUSLIM.

WALA SIYANG PINAG-IBA sa mga SCHOLAR na MUSLIM na KINAKAILANGAN pang I-TAMPER ang mga TALATA para lang MAY MAPALABAS SIYANG ARAL.

At kaugnay po sa ISYU rito, TAMPERED po o CORRUPTED ang UNAWA ni DEEDAT sa PAGSUSUGO sa PARACLETOS.

HINDI po ang PROPETA ng ISLAM ang PARACLETOS. GAWA-GAWA LANG ni DEEDAT ang PANINIWALA na IYAN.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Quran: Skolars at ibang Muslim nagkontrahan?

DAHIL po sa PAGPUPUMILIT ng isang BALIK ISLAM (si kareembill@yahoo.com) na SIRAAN ang BIBLIYA ay NAG-POST SIYA RITO ng mga SINULAT ng PROPAGANDISTANG MUSLIM na si AHMED DEEDAT.

Isa po sa mga sinulat ni AHMED DEEDAT (ang "AL-QUR`AN, The Miracle of Miracles") ay INILAGAY ni kareembill@yahoo.com sa COMMENTS SECTION ng artikulo natin na Deedat: Is Quran the Word of God?

Upang patunayan po na "word of God" ang Quran ay sinipi ni DEEDAT ang isang sinabi umano ng Diyos sa propeta ng Islam.

Sabi po ni DEEDAT:
"As a proof of the divine authorship and the miraculous nature of the Qur`an, two arguments are advanced by the almighty Himself:

1. 'that we' (God Almighty) have revealed to you (O muhammed!) 'the book to you' who art absolutely an unlearned person. An 'ummi' prophet. One who cannot read or write. One who cannot sign his own name. Let thomas carlyle testify regarding the educational qualifications of Muhammad."


Ayon po sa PROPAGANDISTANG MUSLIM, "the almighty Himself" ang NAGHAYAG ng "LIBRO" o "BOOK" sa propeta ng Islam. Ang BOOK po na iyan ay ang AKLAT ng QURAN.

Sa sinusundan pong post ng artikulong ito ay nagpahayag po tayo ng PAGKALITO sa SINABI ni DEEDAT at SINABI ng IBA PANG MUSLIM.

Ayon po kasi kay DEEDAT ay INIHAYAG ng "almighty" ang "LIBRO" ng QURAN sa kanilang propeta NOONG NABUBUHAY pa ITO.

Pero ayon sa ibang Muslim ay HINDI pa BUO ang LIBRO ng QURAN noong NABUBUHAY ang PROPETA ng ISLAM. NABUO lang daw iyon noong pamumuno ni ABU BAKR AL-SIDDIQ mula 632 hanggang 634 AD.

Sa madaling salita ay NABUO raw ang LIBRO ng QURAN PAGKATAPOS na MAMATAY ang KANILANG PROPETA.

So, sa SIMPLENG PAGTINGIN po ay MAKAKAKITA TAYO ng CONTRADICTION sa SINASABI ng mga MUSLIM kaugnay dito.

ANO po ba ang TOTOO? LIBRO ba ang INIHAYAG o IBINIGAY sa PROPETA ng ISLAM o NABUO LANG ang LIBRO noong NAMATAY NA ang PROPETA?

Para po MALIWANAGAN AKO ay BINASA ko ang INTERPRETASYON ng ILANG SKOLAR na MUSLIM para MAKITA ko kung LIBRO nga ba ang IBINIGAY.

Ang mga BINASA ko po ay ang INTERPRETASYON nina MUHAMMAD MOHSIN KHAN, ABDULLAH YUSUF ALI, MUHAMMAD MARMADUKE PICKTHAL, at MUHAMMAD HABIB SHAKIR.

Sa halip pong MALIWANAGAN AKO ay LALO AKONG NALITO at NAGULUHAN.

MISMO po kasi ITONG mga SKOLAR ng ISLAM ay KINONTRA ang KAPWA NILA MUSLIM.

Para po kasi sa MGA ISKOLAR na ito ng ISLAM ay IBINIGAY NA sa PROPETA ng ISLAM ang LIBRO ng QURAN BAGO pa ITO NABUO.

At diyan ay NAGTATAKA AKO: KUNG NAIBIGAY NA ang LIBRO ng QURAN sa PROPETA ng ISLAM, HINDI po ba DAPAT ay BUO na IYON?

At KUNG BUO NA ang LIBRO ng QURAN noon pang PANAHON na BUHAY ang PROPETA ng ISLAM, ANO PA YUNG BINUO noong PANAHON ni ABU BAKR AL-SIDDIQ?

Heto po ang mga SABI ng MGA ISKOLAR kaugnay sa KAHULUGAN ng SURAH 3:3:

MOHSIN KHAN:
It is He [ALLAH] Who has sent down THE BOOK (the Qur'an) to you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) with truth, confirming what came before it.

YUSUF ALI:
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, THE BOOK, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus).

SHAKIR:
He has revealed to you THE BOOK with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan.

PICKTHAL:
He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the SCRIPTURE with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.


Sa LAHAT po ng INTERPRETASYON na SINANGGUNI NATIN ay SINASABI na "BOOK" o "LIBRO" ang IBINIGAY sa PROPETA ng ISLAM.

LIBRO nga po ba ang IBINIGAY?

MAITATANONG po NATIN:

Kung LIBRO ng QURAN ang IBINIGAY sa PROPETA ng ISLAM, hindi ba dapat ay LIBRO na rin ng QURAN ang IBINIGAY NIYA sa mga UNANG MUSLIM?

LIBRO po ba ng QURAN ang IBINIGAY ng PROPETA ng ISLAM sa mga UNANG MUSLIM?

Heto po ang sabi ng ISLAMIC WEBSITE na ISLAMWEB.NET.

The history of the Noble Quran

Upon the command of the Prophet his Companions would write down what was revealed of the Noble Quran. They used, for this purpose, palm branches stripped of leaves, parchments, shoulder bones, stone tablets, etc. About forty people were involved in this task. Among them was Zayd Ibn Thaabit who showed his work to the Prophet . Thus, the Quran was correctly arranged during the Prophet’s life, but it was not yet compiled into one book. In the meantime, most of the Prophet’s Companions memorised the Quran.

When Abu Bakr became Caliph after the Prophet died, a large number of the Companions were killed during the War of Apostasy. 'Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab went to the Caliph and discussed the idea of compiling the Quran into one volume. He was disturbed, as most of those who memorised it had died. Then, Abu Bakr called for Zayd and commissioned him to collect the Quran into one book, which became known as the 'Mus-haf.'


Ayon po sa ISLAMWEB.NET, ISINULAT ng mga KASAMA ng PROPETA ng ISLAM ang mga PAHAYAG kaugnay sa NOBLE QURAN.

NAG-IISIP lang po AKO: BAKIT PA ISUSULAT ng mga KASAMA ng PROPETA ng ISLAM ang mga PAHAYAG tungkol sa QURAN kung AYON sa mga ISKOLAR na MUSLIM ay LIBRO na MISMO ng QURAN ang IBINIGAY sa KANILANG PROPETA?

Katunayan, dagdag pa ng ISLEMWEB.NET, SARI-SARING MATERYALES pa ang GINAMIT ng mga KASAMA ng PROPETA ng ISLAM para lang MAITALA ang MGA PAHAYAG ukol sa QURAN.

Sabi ng ISLAMIC WEBSITE:
They used, for this purpose, palm branches stripped of leaves, parchments, shoulder bones, stone tablets, etc.


At heto pa po. MALINAW na SINASABI ng ISLAMWEB.NET na HINDI PA BUO bilang ISANG LIBRO ang QURAN noong PANAHON na BUHAY PA ang PROPETA NILA.

"[I]t [QURAN] was not yet compiled into one book," SABI ng ISLAMWEB.NET.

Ano po ang KAHULUGAN NIYAN? WALA PANG LIBRO na QURAN noong NABUBUHAY ang KANILANG PROPETA?

Kung WALA pang LIBRO ng QURAN noong NABUBUHAY PA ang PROPETA ng ISLAM, NASAAN po ITONG "LIBRO" ng QURAN na SINASABI ng mga ISKOLAR na IBINIGAY DAW sa KANILANG PROPETA?

MAAARI po bang sabihin na MAY HINDI NAGSASABI nang TOTOO sa PAGITAN ng mga ISKOLAR ng ISLAM at sa MGA NAGKUKUWENTO ng HISTORY ng PAGKABUO sa QURAN?

Kung MAY HINDI NAGSASABI nang TOTOO, SINO po IYON? Ang mga ISKOLAR na NAGSASABI na LIBRO ng QURAN ang IBINIGAY sa PROPETA NILA o ang mga NAGLALAHAD ng KASAYSAYAN ng PAGKABUO sa QURAN?

O baka po hindi ko lang lubos na nauunawaan ang bagay na ito.

KUNG MAY HINDI po AKO NAIINTINDIHAN ay PUWEDE po bang IPALIWANAG DITO ng mga BALIK ISLAM o ng KAHIT NA SINONG MUSLIM ang BAGAY na ITO?

Baka sabihin ng IBA na KONTRA-KONTRA ang mga PAHAYAG ng mga MUSLIM kaugnay sa PAGKAKABUO ng LIBRO ng QURAN.

Nangangamba po ako na BAKA MASIRA ang IMAHEN ng QURAN dahil diyan.

So, PAKI LINAW po.

Ang ISYU ay "LIBRO ba ng QURAN ang IBINIGAY sa PROPETA ng ISLAM (ayon sa SINASABI ng mga ISKOLAR ng ISLAM) o NABUO LANG ang LIBRO ng QURAN noong PATAY NA ang KANILANG PROPETA (ayon sa salaysay ng IBANG MUSLIM)?"

Hihintayin po namin ang paliwanag ninyo.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Qur'an: Libro ba ang ibinigay sa propeta ng Islam?

ITULOY po natin ang PAGSUSURI sa mga SINABI nitong PROPAGANDISTANG si AHMED DEEDAT.

Gusto pong sagutin ni DEEDAT ang TANONG NIYA kung ang QUR'AN ay SALITA nga ng DIYOS.

Ibinigay po ni DEEDAT ang TANONG na iyan sa AKLAT NIYA na "AL-QUR`AN, The Miracle of Miracles".

Ngayon, para po patunayan na SALITA ng DIYOS ang QUR'AN ay sinabin ni DEEDAT:
As a proof of the divine authorship and the miraculous nature of the Qur`an, two arguments are advanced by the almighty Himself:

1. 'that we' (God Almighty) have revealed to you (O muhammed!) 'the book to you' who art absolutely an unlearned person. An 'ummi' prophet. One who cannot read or write. One who cannot sign his own name. Let thomas carlyle testify regarding the educational qualifications of Muhammad -

'one other circumstance we must not forget: that he had no school learnin; of the thing we call school-learning none at all.'

Moreoever the divine author(God Almighty) himself testifies to the veracity of Muhammed's(pbuh) claim that he could never have composed the contents of the holy Qur`an; he could not have been its author:

And thou (O Muhammad) was not (able) to recite a book before this (book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand:

In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted (Qur`an 29:48).


Paki pansin po ang SINIPI ni AHMED DEEDAT na sinabi raw ng "almighty Himself." Sinabi raw ng Diyos:
"'that we' (God Almighty) have revealed to you (O muhammed!) 'THE BOOK to you'" [empahsis mine]

Ang sabi po riyan, ang INIHAYAG daw po ng DIYOS sa PROPETA ng ISLAM ay "ANG LIBRO."

TAMA po ba itong SINIPI ni AHMED DEEDAT? "LIBRO" nga po ba ang INIHAYAG o IBINIGAY sa PROPETA ng ISLAM?

Hindi po ba ang IBINIGAY daw sa PROPETA ng ISLAM ay ang QUR'AN?

Ayon sa WIKIPEDIA, ang KAHULUGAN ng QUR'AN ay "THE RECITATION" o "Ang PAGBIGKAS."

Paki paliwanag po sa akin kung ang "PAGBIGKAS" ay isang "LIBRO." Sana po ay mabigyan ninyo ako ng KALIWANAGAN sa BAGAY na IYAN.

Ngayon, kapag sinabi pong LIBRO ang IBINIGAY ay LIBRO po IYAN: May COVER, may MGA PAHINA, may mga NAKASULAT at IBA PA. Tama po ba?

At dahil sinabi po na "ANG LIBRO," hindi po ba nangangahulugan iyon na BUONG LIBRO NA ang IBINIGAY sa PROPETA ng ISLAM? KUMPLETO NA at HINDI LANG KAPIRASO. Tama po ba pagkaunawa ko?

Anong "LIBRO" po kaya ang tinutukoy riyan? Ang "LIBRO" po ba ng "QUR'AN"?

KUNG NAIBIGAY NA ang BUONG LIBRO ng QUR'AN HINDI po ba DAPAT ay WALA NANG IBANG IPAPAHAYAG? IBINIGAY NA ang MISMONG LIBRO e, di po ba?

So, NAGULUHAN po AKO. MAGULO po kasi talaga itong SINABI ni AHMED DEEDAT.

Tila po MAY MALI NA NAMAN sa SINABI NIYA.

LALONG magiging MAGULO kapag NABASA NINYO ang KASAYSAYAN kung KAILAN NAGING LIBRO ang QUR'AN.

Heto po ang sabi ng The As-Sunnah Foundation of America. Ayon sa website na iyan, Ang "Sunnah.org is an award-winning ISLAMIC portal dedicated to bringing top Islamic resources to the Muslim community."

MALINAW po na WEBSITE ng mga MUSLIM ang SUNNAH.ORG.

Sabi po ng SUNNAH.ORG tungkol sa PAGKABUO ng QUR'AN:
HISTORY OF THE COMPILATION OF QURAN

I. Scribing during the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The Revelation scribes wrote down the Quran, according to the order of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), on pieces of cloth, leather, bones, and stones. Its verses were ordered and arranged according to Allah's inspiration. At the beginning, IT WAS NOT GATHERED in ONE BOOK. Some of the Prophet's companions scribed parts and surahs specially for themselves after they had memorized it from the Prophet.

II. Compiling Quran during the era of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq: Zayd Ibn Thabit gathered the Quran in one book. He was charged to do this by Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, according to an advice from Umar Ibn Al-Khattab. Its resource was the parts written by the Revelation scribes; so HE GATHERED ALL OF IT IN ONE BOOK, the HOLY QURAN.


AYON po sa SUNNAH.ORG, NOONG UNA ay HINDI PA ISANG LIBRO ang QUR'AN. NABUO lang daw po ang QUR'AN bilang ISANG LIBRO noong panahon ni ABU BAKR AL-SIDDIQ.

Sinabi ng SUNNAH.ORG na si ABU BAKR "was THE FIRST of THOSE WHO GATHERED THE QUR'AN BETWEEN TWO COVERS."

Ganoon?

HINDI po ba AYON sa SINIPI ni AHMED DEEDAT ay IBINIGAY na raw ng Diyos ang "LIBRO" sa PROPETA ng ISLAM noong NABUBUHAY pa ITO? Bakit po sinasabi ng ISLAMIC WEBSITE na ITO na SI ABU BAKR ang NAGBUO ng QUR'AN?

ANO po ba TALAGA? DIYOS po ba ang NAGBIGAY ng LIBRO sa PROPETA ng ISLAM o SI ABU BAKR ang NAGBUO NITO?

Pinalalabas pa ngayon nitong AHMED DEEDAT na NAGKAMALI ang DIYOS nung sabihin daw Niya na "LIBRO" ang IBINIGAY NIYA.

NAGBIGAY na raw ng "LIBRO" e BUBUOHIN pa lang pala iyon ni ABU BAKR AL-SIDDIQ.

Teka po, baka naman po BINUO yung "LIBRO" at saka NAIBIGAY sa PROPETA ng ISLAM.

KAILAN po ba NABUO ni AL-SIDDIQ ang QUR'AN bilang ISANG LIBRO?

Ayon po sa Readers of Quran, isa na naman pong ISLAMIC WEBSITE, NABUO ang QUR'AN bilang IISANG LIBRO noong PATAY NA ang PROPETA ng ISLAM.

Sabi po riyan,
"During the caliphate of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (632- 634 CE)

• Umar Ibn Al-Khattab urged Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq to preserve and compile the Qur’an. This was prompted after the battle of Namamah, where heavy casualties were suffered among the reciters who memorised the Qur’an.

• Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq entrusted Zayed Ibn Thabit with the task of collecting the Qur’an. Zayed Ibn Thabit had been present during the last recitation of the Qur’an by the Prophet to Angel Jibreel (Gabriel).

• Zayed Ibn Thabit, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur’an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq the first authenticated copy of the Qur’an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah Bint Umar (one of the Prophet's wives).


MAKIKITA po natin sa PAHAYAG ng ISLAMIC WEBSITE na ito na NABUO ang "FIRST AUTHENTICATED COPY of the QUR'AN" noong PAMUMUNO ni AL-SIDDIQ mula 632 hanggang 634 CE.

Ang PROPETA po ng ISLAM ay NAMATAY noong 632 CE.

So, BATAY po sa SINASABI ng mga MUSLIM ay WALA pang IISANG AKLAT ng QUR'AN NOONG NABUBUHAY pa ang PROPETA ng ISLAM.

Kung GANOON, ANO po ITONG SINASABI ni AHMED DEEDAT na IBINIGAY daw ng DIYOS ang "LIBRO" ng QUR'AN NOON pa mang BUHAY ang PROPETA?

KINOKONTRA po NITONG DEEDAT na ITO ang IBA PANG MUSLIM.

SINO po ang TAMA sa KANILA?

TAMA ba si DEEDAT at MALI ang IBA PANG MUSLIM o TAMA ang NAKARARAMING MUSLIM at PALPAK ang PAHAYAG ni DEEDAT?

Kayo na po ang MAGSABI.

Deedat: Is the Qur'an the Word of God?

NAGBIGAY po ng MAGANDANG TANONG itong PROPAGANDISTANG MUSLIM na si AHMED DEEDAT.

Sabi po niya sa isang ISINULAT NIYA at SINIPI naman ng PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM na si kareembill@yahoo.com:
"What about the Holy Qur'an? Is the Qur'an the Word of God?"


Para po masagot ang tanong na iyan ay ibinigay ni DEEDAT ang mga salitang ito:
"The author of this humble publication has endeavoured to answer this question in a most scientific manner in his book "AL'QUR'AN — The Miracle of Miracles" available absolutely free of charge from the "Centre" on request."

Ang KOPYA po ng LIBRO ni AHMED DEEDAT ay MAKIKITA at MABABASA NATIN sa http://www.jannah.org/articles/qurdeed.html.

BINASA ko po ang SINULAT ni DEEDAT at sa halip na MASAGOT ang TANONG na IBINIGAY NIYA ("Is the Qur'an the Word of God?") ay LALO lang po DUMAMI ang TANONG sa KAISIPAN KO.

BASAHIN po natin ang ILAN sa MGA SINABI ni DEEDAT at SURIIN ang mga ITO.

ITINANONG po nitong si DEEDAT:
"What is a miracle?"


MAGANDANG TANONG po IYAN.

ANO po ang SAGOT ni DEEDAT? Sabi niya,
"An event that appears so inexplicable by the laws of nature, that it is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God." "A person, thing or event that excites admiring awe." "An act beyond human power, an impossibility."


IYAN daw po ang MILAGRO:
1. Isang KAGANAPAN na HINDI MAIPALILIWANAG ng mga BATAS ng KALIKASAN ... SUPERNATURAL IN ORIGIN ... AN ACT OF GOD.

2. Isang TAO o PANGYAYARI na NAG-UUDYOK ng KAGILA-GILALAS na PAGHANGA.

3. Isang GAWAIN na HINDI ABOT ng KAPANGYARIHAN ng TAO, bagay na IMPOSIBLE.

IBINIGAY pa pong HALIMBAWA ni DEEDAT sa MILAGRO ang PAGKABUHAY ng PATAY.

So, para po MASAGOT ang ORIHINAL na TANONG ni DEEDAT ("Is the Qur'an the Word of God?") ay HINANAP ko po sa ISINULAT ni DEEDAT ang MILAGRONG GANYAN para MAKITA KO ang "PATUNAY" na SALITA nga ng DIYOS ang QUR'AN.

IKINALULUNGKOT ko pong SABIHIN na WALANG NAIBIGAY si DEEDAT na SOBRANG KAGILA-GILALAS na PANGYAYARI na MAGPAPAKITA na HIMALA nga ng DIYOS ang QUR'AN.

Sa madaling salita po ay NABIGO si DEEDAT na PATUNAYAN ang SINASABI NIYA.

Pero baka po nagkakamali lang ako.

Puwede po bang KAYO NA ang MAGBASA ng ISINULAT ni DEEDAT para KAYO ang TUMINGIN kung mayroon ngang BAGAY o PANGYAYARI na HINDI MAIPALILIWANAG ng TAO o HINDI ABOT ng KAKAYAHAN ng TAO?

WALA po kasi akong NAKITA sa mga SINABI ni DEEDAT.

Sa punto pong ito ay NAISIP KO na IPINAHIYA ni DEEDAT ang BANAL na AKLAT ng ISLAM.

NAGMALAKI SIYA na MAGPAPAKITA SIYA ng PATUNAY na SALITA ng DIYOS ang QUR'AN pero WALA NAMAN SIYANG NAIPAKITA.

KATUNAYAN po ay HINDI MAN LANG IPINAKITA ni DEEDAT na DIYOS MISMO ang NAGBIGAY ng QUR'AN sa KANILANG PROPETA.

Hindi po ba DAPAT AY IYON ang MALINAW na IPINAKITA ni DEEDAT?

Dahil WALANG IPINAKITA si DEEDAT ay BINIGO rin NIYA ang PROPETA ng ISLAM.

HINDI po KASALANAN o PAGKUKULANG ng QUR'AN o ng PROPETA ng ISLAM ang BAGAY na IYAN. PAGKUKULANG po IYAN ng PROPAGANDISTANG si DEEDAT.

Kaya po sa OPINYON ko ay HINDI KARAPAT-DAPAT at HINDI CREDIBLE si DEEDAT na MAGSALITA para sa QUR'AN at sa PROPETA ng ISLAM.

PINAHINA LANG NIYA ang IMAHEN ng AKLAT ng ISLAM at ang PROPETA ng ISLAM.

WALA po KASI SIYANG MAIPAKITANG MATIBAY na PATUNAY para IANGAT ang QUR'AN at ang PROPETA ng ISLAM.

Sa KABILANG DAKO po ay TINALO si DEEDAT ng MGA PATOTOO na ang BIBLIYA ay TUNAY na SALITA ng DIYOS.

Una po, ang mga NILALAMAN ng BIBLIYA ay DIREKTANG IBINIGAY ng DIYOS sa MGA PROPETA o sa mga SAKSI sa KANYANG MGA SALITA at GAWA.

MALINAW na IPINAKIKITA ng BIBLIYA na PERSONAL na KINAUSAP ng DIYOS ang mga PROPETA sa BIBLIYA. Simulan po natin kay MOISES, kay ISAIAS, kay JOSUE hanggang sa ULTIMONG PROPETA--ang DIYOS ANAK at SALITA ng DIYOS na si HESU KRISTO.

Katunayan po ay GINAWA ni KRISTO ang ULTIMONG MILAGRO na PUWEDENG MANGYARI: SIYA na DIYOS ay NAGKATAWANG TAO, NABUHAY bilang TAO, NAMATAY bilang TAO at NABUHAY NA MULI upang ILIGTAS TAYO.

PURIHIN si KRISTO! PURIHIN ang DIYOS!

MAY HIHIGIT pa po bang MILAGRO RIYAN?

Sa SOBRANG KAGILA-GILALAS po NIYAN ay HINDI MAKAPANIWALA itong si AHMED DEEDAT at itong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM na NAGAWA iyan ng DIYOS. Kaya nga po PILIT NILANG SINISIRAAN ang pagka-DIYOS ng PANGINOONG HESUS.

Pero tulad nga po ng sinasabi at PINATOTOTOHANAN ng BIBLIYA: WALANG IMPOSIBLE sa DIYOS. (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37, Luke 18:27)

Pangalawa, NAPATUNAYAN po na SALITA ng DIYOS ang BIBLIYA dahil MARAMI pong PAHAYAG DIYAN na NATUPAD at NATUTUPAD PA hanggang NGAYON.

Halimbawa po, sinabi sa Mt 24:4-5, 11 at 24 na LILITAW ang MARAMING BULAANG MANGANGARAL upang LINLANGIN at ILIGAW ang mga ALAGAD ng DIYOS.

Hindi po ba LUMITAW itong si DEEDAT at INILIGAW itong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM. O di po ba? TUPAD na TUPAD ang SINABI sa BIBLIYA?

MILAGRO po YON.

PAANO NALAMAN ng BIBLIYA na LILITAW si DEEDAT at ILILIGAW itong KRISTIYANO na ngayon ay PALAMURA nang BALIK ISLAM?

HIMALA po KASI IYAN.

MARAMI pa pong PATUNAY na SALITA ng DIYOS ang BIBLIYA pero sa IBANG PAGKAKATAON na po iyon.

Ang ISYU po RITO ay ang PANGAKO ni AHMED DEEDAT na PATUTUNAYAN na SALITA at HIMALA ng DIYOS ang QUR'AN. Isang bagay na BINIGO ni DEEDAT ang BANAL na KASULATAN ng ISLAM.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Ang Gospel ayon kay Matthew

ITO ang bahagi PAGSUSURI na ginawa ni DANIEL B. WALLACE na may pamagat na "Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline".

Diyan po ay MAKIKITA NATIN ang mga EBIDENSIYA na MAGPAPATUNAY na ang APOSTOL na si MATTHEW ang GUMAWA o BUMUO sa EBANGHELYO na INIUUGNAY sa KANYA.

INILALABAS po NATIN ang ISINULAT ni WALLACE bilang SAGOT sa PANINIRA ng isang BALIK ISLAM na PILIT na MINAMALIIT ang BIBLIYA.

Ang ginagamit po nitong BALIK ISLAM na si kareembill@yahoo.com ay ang Mt 9:9 kung saan INAAKALA niya na porke gumamit ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE si MATTHEW ay HINDI na SIYA ang GUMAWA ng BINUO NIYANG EBANGHELYO.

Para po sa ARTIKULO kaugnay sa PAGGAMIT ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE sa PANULAT ni MATTHEW ay paki CLICK po ang LINK na ito: Matthew hindi nagsulat ng Ebanghelyo?.

HAPPY READING po.


Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline

A. The Author
There are three pieces of evidence to consider if we are to arrive at any conclusion about the authorship of the first gospel: (1) the title, (2) external evidence, and (3) internal evidence. As will soon become apparent, not all of these categories bear equal weight.


1. The Title
The titles of NT books were not part of the autograph, but were added later on the basis of tradition. Still, the tradition in this case is universal: every MS which contains Matthew has some sort of ascription to Matthew.1 Some scholars suggest that this title was added as early as 125 CE.2 The fact that every inscription to this gospel affirms that Matthew was the author coupled with the fact that nowhere does the author identify himself makes the tradition quite strong, but still short of proof.


2. External Evidence
The earliest statement that Matthew wrote something is by Papias: “Instead [of writing in Greek], Matthew arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was able.”3 We have already discussed some of the possibilities of what Papias referred to in this statement.4 It may be helpful, in this place, to outline the general views: (1) “the oracles” (taV logiva) = the Gospel of Matthew; (2) “the oracles” = a sayings source (like Q); (3) Papias is not speaking about the Hebrew dialect, but he uses dialevkto" to mean “literary fashion”; thus, Matthew arranged his Gospel along Jewish-Christian lines; (4) Papias was wrong.

Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence. Further, Matthew does not show strong evidence of being translation Greek. (2) Some have suggested therefore (as an expedient to salvage the first view) that Papias was referring to Matthew’s literary method, rather than linguistics, but such is by no means a natural interpretation of dialevkto". (3) Although Papias could have been wrong—and he was a man of meager intelligence (according to Eusebius)!—he is sufficiently early and well-connected with apostolic Christianity that he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. (4) The best option, in our view, is that Papias was referring to a sayings source which Matthew wrote. If so, then Matthew in all probability incorporated this source into his gospel, after rearranging it.5 As we suggested in our section on the Synoptic Problem, this sayings source may well have constituted a portion of Q.6 In any event, the great probability is that Papias is referring to the apostle Matthew as an author of material on the life of Jesus. Whether this is proto-Matthew, Q, or Matthew, Matthean authorship of the first gospel is either directly or indirectly supported by the statement.

After Papias, Irenaeus wrote: “Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church.”7 It is obvious that Irenaeus got the gist of this information from Papias (since he was acquainted with his work), though he does add two interesting points: (1) the audience of Matthew’s work was the Jews (or Jewish Christians); (2) the time when this work was written was during Peter and Paul’s tenure in Rome. In light of Irenaeus’ dependence on Papias (as well as his interpretation of his statement), this part of the tradition does not receive an independent testimony.8 But Irenaeus adds the interesting point that the time when Matthew wrote this was when Peter and Paul were in Rome. This may be no more than a guess, for other information in the statement seems false.9 On the other hand, since Peter and Paul were not in Rome together until the early 60s, this may well help us to fix a date for Matthew’s Gospel, provided that this tradition has other corroborative evidence.

Still later, Origen assumed that Matthew penned his Gospel originally in Hebrew. However, Origen adds nothing to what Papias has said, and may well have assumed that Papias was speaking about the Gospel rather than a sayings source. After Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and others echoed the opinion of Matthean authorship.

The early external testimony is universal on two points: (1) Matthew wrote something related to the life of Jesus Christ; and (2) Matthew wrote in a Semitic tongue. Little, if any, independent testimony exists however for the supposition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic. Nevertheless, the attachment of the name of Matthew to the first gospel may well indicate that it ultimately goes back to him, even if completed by a later compiler.

Added to this explicit testimony are the quotations of Matthew’s Gospel in the early patristic writers. It is quoted as early as 110 CE (by Ignatius), with a steady stream of patristic citations afterward. In fact, Matthew’s Gospel was quoted (and copied) far more often than either Mark or Luke. From earliest times, then, it was treated as canonical and authoritative on the life of Jesus Christ, regardless of authorship.

One final comment about external evidence should be added. Although there is always the possibility of a vested interest on the part of patristic writers to seek apostolic authorship for the anonymous books of the NT, this does not explain why Matthew and no other apostle was ever suggested for the first gospel. Indeed, not only was Matthew by no means the most prominent of the apostles, but he also would not seem to be as qualified as some others to write to Jewish Christians, in light of his former occupation. Would not Andrew or Philip or Bartholomew have been more likely candidates if an apostolic author were merely a figment of the early church? None of them had the stigma of having been in league with the Romans, and all figured more prominently in the gospel narratives. What is especially impressive is that Matthew and Matthew alone was suggested as the author of the first gospel.


3. Internal Evidence
The following are seven pieces of internal evidence which suggest, first, that the author was a Jew, and second, that he was Matthew.10


a. Familiarity with the Nation
The author was familiar with geography (2:23), Jewish customs (cf. 1:18-19), Jewish history (he calls Herod Antipas “tetrarch” instead of “king”). He displays a concern for the OT law (5:17-20) and puts an emphasis on the evangelistic mission to the Jewish nation as well (ch. 10). The evidence is quite strong for authorship by a Jew.11


b. Hints of Semitisms in his Language
There are relatively few Semitic traces in Matthew, though one might note the heavy use of tovte (89 times), as compared with Mark (6) and Luke (15), perhaps harking back to the Hebrew za.12 Beyond this, there is the occasional asyndeton13 (a mark of Aramaic influence), use of the indefinite plural (1:23; 7:16), etc. Although Matthew’s Greek is less Semitic than Mark’s, it does betray traces of Semitisms at times—even where none exists in the Markan parallel. If Matthew did write this gospel, one might not expect many Semitisms since Matthew was a tax-collector and would therefore have to be conversant in Greek as well as Hebrew/Aramaic. But the fact of some Semitisms suggests either that the writer was a Jew or that his sources were Semitic. Yet, some of these are so much a part of the fabric of his gospel (e.g., tovte) that it is more reasonable to suppose that the author was himself a Jew.


c. His Use of Scripture
Gundry has ably pointed out how the author used the OT, especially in his formula quotations. Although there are many OT citations which correspond to the LXX rendering, his own introductory formulae (which are not found in either Mark or Luke) all seem to be free translations of the Hebrew.14 If so, then the author most probably is a Jew. Further, he shows great familiarity with contemporary Jewish exegesis in how he uses the scriptures.15


d. Attack on Pharisees
Matthew’s Gospel attacks the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders more than Mark or Luke do (cf. 3:7 16:6, 11, 12; ch. 23). Perhaps the reason for this was, in part, due to how hard these religious leaders were on the tax-collectors (they associated them with sinners and Gentiles). Not much can be made of this however.


e. Frequent Use of Numbers
The author’s frequent use of numbers would be natural for a tax-collector. He divides things into three parts: the genealogy, the trilogies of miracles in chapters 8-9; five parts: five great sermons of Jesus, all with the same closing formula (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1); six corrections on the misuse of the Law (in chapter 5); seven woes, parables (ch. 13); etc. Again, not much can be made of this argument, else one would have to say that a tax-collector wrote the Apocalypse! But at least it is consistent with who Matthew was.


f. His Mention of Money
A more weighty argument is the author’s frequent reference to money—more frequent than the other gospel writers in fact. He uses unique monetary terms (drachma in 17:24; stater in 17:25; talent in 18:24, 25); he alone of the synoptists speaks of gold and silver; Matthew contains the only two parables on talents (chs. 18, 25); and he uses tax-collector-type terminology (“debts” in 6:12 where the Lukan parallel has “sins”); “bankers” (25:27), etc. Especially when one compares the synoptic parallels, Matthew’s use of monetary terms seems significant. The most reasonable hypothesis for this is that the author was quite familiar with money.


g. The Calling of Levi
Both Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27-28 speak of the calling of “Levi” while Matthew 9:9 calls him “Matthew.” But all the lists of the apostles refer to him as Matthew (Matt 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1).16 Yet, what is remarkable is that only in the first gospel is Matthew called “the tax-collector” in the list of apostles. It may well be that the author is showing humility in this reference. In the least, however, Matthew’s Gospel is the only one which identifies the tax-collector whom Jesus called with Matthew the apostle. The most logical reason that the writer felt such liberty with his Markan source was because he knew of the identification personally.

Thus he could either be Matthew himself or an associate who later compiled the work. Against the compiler theory is Matt 9:9, which records the calling of Matthew: “it is significant that it is more self-deprecating than Luke’s account, which says that Matthew ‘left everything’ and followed Jesus”17 while Matthew simply says that he got up and followed Jesus. If the first gospel were not by Matthew, one would be at a loss to explain why the author seemed to deprecate Matthew in such subtle ways. A later compiler who knew and respected Matthew (probably a disciple of his), or worse, a “school of St. Matthew,” simply does not fit the bill.18

In sum, each piece of evidence is hardly weighty on its own. But taken together, there is a cumulative impression made on the reader that a bilingual Palestinian Jew, well acquainted with money, wrote this gospel. External testimony has already suggested Matthew as the author; the internal evidence does nothing to shake this impression. There is, therefore, little reason to doubt Matthean authorship.


4. Objections to Matthean Authorship
There are three primary objections to Matthean authorship, listed in descending order of value: (1) the improbable use of Mark by an apostle; (2) the high quality of the Greek of the gospel; and (3) the nonbiographical structure of the book.

(1) Assuming Markan priority, would an apostle use a gospel written by a non-apostle, or even any written source? This is not as weighty an argument as it appears, for “if Matthew thought Mark’s account reliable and generally suited to his purposes (and he may have known that Peter stood behind it), there can be no objection to the view that an apostle depended on a nonapostolic document.”19

This is analogous to the Revised Version translators (1881) using the King James Version. They intentionally supported the tradition of the KJV, and in fact wanted to emulate its translation wherever possible. However, they deviated from it in three distinct ways: (a) they wanted the new work to be based on more ancient MSS; (b) they had a better grasp of the Greek than did the KJV translators and sought to make a more accurate translation even where the textual basis was identical; (c) they wanted to remove archaisms which were no longer clearly understood. The motivation behind the RV was “to make a good thing better.” What is most significant for our purposes is the fact that even though the RV translators knew Greek much better than did the KJV translators and had earlier MSS to work with, they still wanted to keep in line with the KJV tradition as much as possible. The analogy with Matthew and Mark is obvious: even though Matthew was an eyewitness, he wanted to use Mark’s Gospel as much as possible, both to affirm its reliability and as a ready framework for the sermons of Jesus; but he also wanted to correct its grammar in places, and supplement it with pertinent information in other places.20

(2) Kümmel adds three other arguments: “the systematic and therefore nonbiographical form of the structure of Mt, the late-apostolic theological position, and the Greek language of Mt make this proposal completely impossible.”21 Of these, only the first and third are really weighty, for the lateness of the theology is so intertwined with the supposedly late dates of other NT books and assumptions of uniformly linear development that it carries little conviction.22 Of the other two considerations, one will be dealt with here and the other will take up our last point.

The high quality of the Greek is hardly an argument against Matthean authorship, for Matthew would have to have known both Aramaic and Greek in order to collect taxes from the Jews and work for the Romans.23 Further, there is a growing consensus that Galilee of the first century was thoroughly bilingual—so much so that Greek was probably the native tongue of most Jews. 24

(3) “The systematic and nonbiographical” structure of Matthew25 does not preclude Matthean authorship. Such is a non sequitur because “(1) a topically ordered account can yield biographical facts as easily as a strictly chronological account, and (2) Kümmel wrongly supposes that apostolicity is for some reason incapable of choosing anything other than a chronological framework.”26


5. Conclusion on Authorship
Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstacles, in spite of some scholars calling Matthean authorship “impossible.” On the positive side, the universal external evidence which seems to lack motivation for the choice of Matthew (as opposed to any other apostle), coupled with the subtle internal evidence, makes the traditional view still the most plausible one.27



NOTES:
1 The simplest inscription is kataV Maqqaivon, found in Aleph B (“according to Matthew”). As time progressed this became more elaborate: in the fifth century the title was customarily eujaggevlion kataV Maqqaivon (D W [“The Gospel according to Matthew”), while still later it was called a{gion eujaggevlion kataV Maqqaivon (Byzantine MSS and others [“the Holy Gospel according to Matthew”).

2 So Guthrie, 43.

3 Fragments of Papias 2:16 (my translation).

4 Cf. our discussion under the “Synoptic Problem” (which has been previously posted).

5 This rearrangement suggests that the Matthean sermons may not have been literary units originally. Such indeed seems to be the case except for the Olivet Discourse. This is due to two factors: (1) The Olivet Discourse is found in Mark intact, suggesting that it at least circulated as a unit in the oral period (and further that it is not due to Matthew’s rearranging of material); (2) on the analogy of the Gospel of Thomas, there would be little interest in prophecy in a sayings source (probably because prophecy cannot be laid out easily in isolated aphorisms). Hence, in spite of critical scholarship’s dissecting of the Olivet Discourse into separate pericopae which melted into one literary unit before the gospels were written, this sermon at least has all the earmarks of going back to the historical Jesus en toto, in situ. (Incidentally, this view of the Olivet Discourse finds indirect confirmation in a recent work on Q. Ronald A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Traditions: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus [SNTSMS 61, 1989] points out that “collections of aphoristic sayings . . . [are] relatively free of domination by strongly eschatological motifs” [9]. Thus the Olivet Discourse probably did not circulate as isolated sayings.)

6 One substantial problem for this view is that in the earlier fragment (2:15) Papias speaks of Mark recording Peter’s sermons on taV logiva kuriakw'n. But the context clearly indicates that both the Lord’s deeds and words are in view. If so, this would seem to make logiva in 2:16 (Papias’ comment on Matthew’s literary endeavors) also refer to the Lord’s words and deeds, precluding the meaning of a sayings source like Q. However, Papias could be using the genitive objectively in 2:15 and subjectively in 2:16, and logiva would retain the same meaning each time: “the sayings about the Lord” (which Peter spoke), “the sayings by the Lord” (which Matthew recorded).

7 Eusebius, HE 5.8.2.

8 However, it should be stressed again that Irenaeus’ words ought not necessarily be taken to mean that Matthew wrote a Gospel in a Semitic tongue, for Irenaeus says that he wrote a “book about the gospel,” or perhaps, “a book about the good news,” In light of this, Irenaeus may well mean that Matthew wrote something other than a gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic).

9 Specifically, Peter and Paul did not “found” the church in Rome.

10 For the most part, this material is taken from class notes on the NT course “The Gospel of Matthew,” taught by Dr. Harold Hoehner, fall 1977. It should be noted, however, that Hoehner most likely gathered most of his material from Stanley D. Toussaint’s dissertation, “The Argument of Matthew,” (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Seminary, 1957), 10-13.

11 So strong is this evidence that even Ernst von Dobschütz, who disputed Matthean authorship, felt that the work was written by a Rabbi! Cf. his article in ZNW 27 (1928) 338-48, later translated (“Matthew as Rabbi and Catechest”) and incorporated into The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. Stanton (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 19-29.

12 H. C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (139), however makes way too much of this when he suggests that Matthew was thinking in a Semitic tongue, though writing in Greek. Such a view could be cogently argued for the Apocalypse, but hardly for Matthew (indeed, most scholars find very few Semitisms in Matthew).

13 “There are still 21 instances of asyndeta in Matthew’s Markan sections where Mark has no asyndeton,” N. Turner, Style, 31.

14 Cf. R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew.

15 Cf. R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Against Longenecker, cf. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew (although Gundry would say that Matthew did not get his hermeneutics from rabbinic circles, he still argues cogently that Matthew learned it from the Lord Jesus himself).

16 Guthrie (52) queries, “Could it be that for the author of this gospel the name Matthew came to have greater significance than the name Levi, from the time of his dramatic call to follow Jesus? It is not impossible that this is a conscious personal touch.” It is further possible that Matthew used this name, rather than Levi, just as Paul referred to himself as “Paul” rather than “Saul,” even though both names are used of him in Acts. Hagner adds a helpful insight here as well: “It is virtually certain that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent on Mark in this passage [9:9]. Mark and Luke, had they been dependent upon Matthew, would hardly have felt free to substitute the name of an otherwise unknown person, Levi, for the name of an apostle. It is thus very probable that the author of the Gospel of Matthew changed the name Levi to Matthew in this passage. Also, as though to alert the readers to the intended equation of the two names, when in the next chapter (10:3) the Evangelist lists the Twelve, he alone adds ‘the tax collector’ to Matthew’s name. But why did the Evangelist change the name Levi to Matthew? The most natural conclusion is that the tax collector Levi came to be called Matthew (a name so appropriate to the situation) after his conversion, and that this new name, now the name of an apostle, was significant to the author of the Gospel—a Gospel that, according to tradition, derived from that very Matthew” (D. A. Hagner, “Matthew,” in ISBE 3:280).

17 D. A. Carson, Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8), 224.

18 This is not analogous to Mark’s explicit and overt virtual belittling of Peter in his gospel, for he got the substance of his gospel from Peter’s own sermons in which Peter no doubt had said these self-deprecating remarks. There is absolutely no ancient testimony which suggests that Matthew was written by disciples of Matthew, however, rendering the compiler view improbable.

19 Carson, Matthew, 18.

20 We could add further that the ancient world did not have the same view of plagiarism as does the modern (western) world. Thus, 2 Peter could utilize Jude (or Jude, 2 Peter) without giving any credit. Not only this, but in spite of F. C. Baur’s protests, the early Christian community probably had greater harmony on the top levels than we have been led to believe in the last 150+ years. If so, then Matthew may well have intended to write his gospel, in part, to affirm Mark’s reliability.

21 Kümmel, 121.

22 Indeed, some scholars who are not predisposed toward Markan priority would date Matthew as early as the 40s (so Hoehner, perhaps Reicke; even Robinson entertains this idea). Carson, who is predisposed toward Markan priority, still can say, “the alleged lateness of the theological position may be disputed at every point” (Matthew, 18).

23 Cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew, 178-85.

24 See our extended discussion of the bilingualism of first century Palestine in Exegetical Syntax.

25 Part and parcel to this is the less vivid style of Matthew (as opposed to Mark). Cf. Turner, Style, 40-41. This, however, may well be a matter of one’s personality: Peter was well-known as giving stirring messages (and Mark apparently based his gospel on Peter’s messages), while we know next to nothing about Matthew’s style. However, if modern analogies are worth anything, accountants and tax-collectors are usually detail-oriented people, not given to exaggeration nor excessive emotion (indeed, most of the ones I know are fairly boring!). This less vivid, more systematic style, may well be in keeping with Matthew’s personality—and in fact might be an argument in favor of Matthean authorship!

26 Carson, Matthew, 18.

27 For perhaps the best defense of Matthean authorship of this gospel, cf. Gundry’s Matthew, 609-622.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Matthew hindi nagsulat ng ebanghelyo?

MAYROON pong IPINAGPIPILITAN itong BALIK ISLAM para SIRAAN ang BIBLIYA.

Basahin po natin itong pag-uusap namin sa text na ipinost nitong BALIK ISLAM na si kareembill@yahoo.com sa ilalim ng ARTIKULO NATIN na Yahweh imbento ng Kristiyano?

Heto po ang ipinost ni kareembill@yahoo.com

Muslim;
Tingnan nga natin? sino ang sumulat ng Gospel of Matthew? alam mo ba? 11:06 AM

Cenon Bibe
E d c matthew. Cge tutulan mo 11:08 AM

Muslim;
si Matthew ba? basa Matt 9:9 dyan ba patunay ba yan na ang matt ay mismong si Matt talaga ang may sulat? o sumulat? sagot? Sumagot ka? 11:07 AM

hahahahahah! Pahiya ba? nandoon na pahiyang pahiya ka na sa mismong blog mo! baka nga magtatago ka na naman eh. 11:08 AM

Cenon Bibe;
Ay tanga. Ang tawag dyan 3rd person narrative. Ignorante ka nga. Hahaha 11:09 AM

Muslim;
Gago! basahin at unawain mong Bobo ka! Matthew 9:9 11:09 AM

Cenon Bibe;
Hahaha! Ignorante. 3rd person narrative d alam. Hahaha 11:10 AM

Muslim;
sino yang 3rd person na yan si Matthew pa rin ba? Gagohin nyo pagmumukha nyo sanay talaga kayong Ginagago nyo sarili no ano? hahahahaha! 11:10 AM

Cenon Bibe;
Ang gago yung ignorante pero akala may alam cya. Hahaha 11:11 AM
Tatanga- tanga ka. 3rd person narrative lang d mo pa alam. HAHAHA 11:11 AM

Muslim;
eh di hindi nga yan Gospel ni Matthew kong hindi Gospel yan ng unknown 3rd as according to your STUPIDITY! tama? 11:11 AM

Cenon Bibe;
Hoy, ignorante. Mag-aral ka muna bago ka dumaldal. HAHAHA 11:12 AM
Dinagdagan mo pa kabobohan mo. HAHAHA! Yan tatalakayin ko sa blog ko para mapahiya kayo lalo. HAHAHA 11:13 AM

Muslim;
bakit kinakailangan ng 3rd person? dahil ba babagohin ang mga kasulatan ni Matthew? kong iyan ay talagang mga kasulatan ni Matthew bakit ikinakhiya 11:13 AM


Ang pilit pong tinututulan nitong BALIK ISLAM na si kareembill@yahoo.com ay HINDI RAW ang APOSTOL na si MATTHEW ang NAGSULAT ng GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. Ang patunay raw niyan ay mababasa sa Matthew 9:9.

Ano po ba ang sinasabi sa Mt9:9?

Heto po:
"As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post. He said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him."


Dahil daw po riyan, INAAKALA na nitong BALIK ISLAM na hindi na si Matthew ang gumawa ng Ebanghelyo na nakaugnay sa kanya.

INAAKALA yata nitong si kareembill@yahoo.com na KAILANGAN ay ganito ang nakasulat:
"As Jesus passed on from there, he saw ME, Matthew, sitting at the customs post. He said to ME, "Follow me." And I got up and followed him."


Sa ibang salita, KAILANGAN daw ay "FIRST PERSON" ang GINAMIT at HINDI THIRD PERSON na PRONOUNS na "HIM" at "HE."

TAMA po ba itong BALIK ISLAM na ito?

MALI po itong BALIK ISLAM. HINDI KAILANGANG GUMAMIT ng FIRST PERSON sa Mt9:9 para lang masabi na SI MATTHEW ang NAG-ULAT ng EBANGHELYO na IYAN.

Sa sinabi po nitong BALIK ISLAM ay lumilitaw lang uli ang KAWALAN NIYA ng ALAM kaugnay sa mga BAGAY na PINAKIKIALAMAN NIYA.

Ngayon, sagutin po natin ang GUMUGULO sa ISIP nitong BALIK ISLAM na ito: Kung si MATTHEW nga ang GUMAWA ng EBANGHELYO, BAKIT THIRD PERSON ang GINAMIT sa Mt 9:9 at HINDI FIRST PERSON?

Ang una pong dapat nating pansinin ay NAG-UULAT si MATTHEW sa EBANGHELYO. HINDI po SIYA GUMAGAWA ng OPINYON LANG.

Ang FIRST PERSON na PAGKUKWENTO ay NAGPAPAKITA ng mga PERSONAL na OPINYON ng isang TAO. Ang EBANGHELYO na GAWA ni MATTHEW ay HINDI NIYA OPINYON LANG.

Ang EBANGHELYO ay WALANG BAHID OPINYON na PAG-UULAT sa MGA PANGYAYARI sa BUHAY ni HESUS.

Sa PAGGAWA po ng OBJECTIVE o TUWIRANG PAG-UULAT ay MAS PINAPABORAN po ang THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE.

Heto po ang sabi ng mga NAKAKAALAM tungkol sa bagay na iyan (lahat ng EMPHASIS ay AKIN):
There are many times, though, when THIRD PERSON REALLY IS THE BETTER CHOICE. In fact, many academic and professional situations require it as first person is more casual and informal.

The biggest reason to move from first to third person is simply that THIRD PERSON TAKES THE WRITER (the "I") OUT OF THE WRITING WHICH PLACES THE EMPHASIS ON WHAT IS BEING SAID RATHER THAN WHO IS SAYING IT.

It creates a sense of MORE OBJECTIVITY and DISTANCE--the writer's feelings and personality are peripheral to an argument's validity--THE FACTS are ALLOWED to SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

WRITING IN THIRD PERSON IS also STRONGER and MORE FORCEFUL therefore is often more convincing. Often the "I" statement weakens an argument or statement.


Galing po iyan sa Should You Write In First Or Third Person?


Ayan po. Ang THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE ay:
1. "PLACES THE EMPHASIS ON WHAT IS BEING SAID RATHER THAN WHO IS SAYING IT."

2. Nagbibigay sa ULAT ng "MORE OBJECTIVITY and DISTANCE"

3. "THE FACTS are ALLOWED to SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES."

4. "WRITING IN THIRD PERSON IS also STRONGER and MORE FORCEFUL."

NAKIKITA po NINYO?

MALINAW na GINAGAMIT po TALAGA ang THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE sa PANULAT kaya MADALING MAKIKITA at MAUNAWAAN kung BAKIT GUMAMIT ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE sa Matthew 9:9.

Kaya HINDI KATAKA-TAKA na sa halip na gumamit si MATTHEW ng FIRST PERSON ay GUMAMIT SIYA ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE.

HINDI po IYAN ALAM nitong BALIK ISLAM na NAGPUPUMILIT BUMATIKOS sa BIBLIYA.

DAPAT po, BAGO BUMABATIKOS ang ISANG TAO ay MAY ALAM SIYA sa MGA SINASABI NIYA.

Sa kaso po nitong si kareembill@yahoo.com ay WALA SIYANG ALAM sa mga SINASABI NIYA pero MATAPANG SIYANG BUMATIKOS.

Ngayon ay NAKIKITA NATIN na ang BUMABATIKOS sa BIBLIYA ay WALANG KREDEBILIDAD dahil WALA SILANG ALAM. WALA SILANG ALAM sa BIBLIYA at maging sa LITERARY FORMS o STYLE ng PAG-UULAT o PAGKUKWENTO.

Sana po ay NAKATULONG ITO sa INYO.

SALAMAT po.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

'Yahweh" imbento ng Kristiyano?

BIGYANG daan po natin itong POST ng isang ANONYMOUS na BALIK ISLAM kaugnay sa PAGGAMIT NATIN sa YAHWEH bilang PANGALAN ng DIYOS.

Sabi nitong BALIK ISLAM:
COMMON ORIGIN
What is YHWH and what is ELOHIM? Since the Jews didn't use vowels in that particular YHWH sino naman po kaya ang nag-utos ng mga Kristyano para lagyan ng vowels ang YHWH ito po ang TETRAGRAMMATON / FOUR LETTER ang YHWH or ang tinatawag nilang or pakahulogan ng TETRA in Greek means FOUR, and GRAMMATON means LETTERS which simply means "a Four Letter words." and since d Jews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the rights to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded.

But to our surprised on the Contrary from the one who really received the message e.g YHWH who never articulate the same for Century! Now come the Christians expounding the word e.g YHWH from their own understanding without God's dictations and from their own understanding now the Word YHWH becomes YaHWeH with a little addition and invention from their own! Remember mga giliw na taga subaybay, those vowels that was added was not God's dictations! Yan po ay embento po lamang nila! ng mga Kristyano lalong-lalo na po ang simbahang katoliko! They are adding something to the ORIGINAL to CORRUPT it!

Yan lamang po at mabuhay po kayo!



MAGANDA po sana dahil NAGPUPUMILIT na MAGMUKHANG MAY ALAM itong BALIK ISLAM pero LALO LANG po NALALANTAD na WALA SIYANG ALAM.

Dapat po nating tandaan na marami sa mga BALIK ISLAM ay MGA DATING KRISTIYANO na DAHIL KOKONTI ang ALAM sa KRISTIYANISMO, sa HISTORY, at sa BIBLIYA ay MADALING NALOKO at NALINLANG ng mga MAS WALANG ALAM kaysa sa KANILA.

Ayon po sa kanya, "Yan [Yahweh] po ay embento po lamang nila! ng mga Kristyano lalong-lalo na po ang simbahang katoliko! They are adding something to the ORIGINAL to CORRUPT it!"

Pa-INGLES-INGLES pa po itong BALIK ISLAM na ito pero KA-IGNORANTEHAN NAMAN po ang SINASABI.

TAYO pa raw po ang nag-CORRUPT sa PANGALAN ng DIYOS e SIYA nga po itong DALDAL nang DALDAL kahit KAKARAMPOT ang KANYANG ALAM.

ISA-ISAHIN po natin ang IGNORANCE nitong BALIK ISLAM na ito.

Ayon po sa kanya:
"Jews didn't use vowels in that particular YHWH sino naman po kaya ang nag-utos ng mga Kristyano para lagyan ng vowels ang YHWH."


Gusto niyang palabasin na porke HINDI NILAGYAN ng mga HUDYO ng VOWELS ang YHWH o TETRAGRAMMATON ay HINDI NA MALALAMAN ang PRONUNCIATION NIYON?

MALI po. ONLY an IGNORANT PERSON will CLAIM THAT.

SINASABI po ba talaga ng mga HUDYO na HINDI PUWEDENG MALAMAN ang TAMANG BIGKAS sa YHWH o TETRAGRAMMATON?

HINDI po.

Katunayan, heto po ang MISMONG PAHAYAG ng mga HUDYO kaugnay sa BIGKAS sa YHWH (batay sa sinasabi ng JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA).

"... the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh () or Yahaweh ()."

Names of God,



NAKIKITA po NINYO?

MISMONG mga HUDYO ay NAGSASABI na ang "YAHWEH" ang MALAMANG na ORIHINAL na BIGKAS sa YHWH.

Paki CLICK po ninyo ang LINK sa itaas para KAYO MISMO ang MAKABASA sa PAHAYAG ng mga HUDYO kaugnay diyan.



Ngayon, HETO pa po ang isa pang IGNORANTENG CLAIM nitong BALIK ISLAM:
Now come the Christians expounding the word e.g YHWH from their own understanding without God's dictations and from their own understanding now the Word YHWH becomes YaHWeH with a little addition and invention from their own!


KRISTIYANO lang po ba ang NAGPALAWIG ng BIGKAS sa YHWH o sa PANGALAN ng DIYOS?

MALI na nanam po itong BALIK ISLAM.

MABABASA po natin MISMO sa BIBLIYA na DIYOS ang NAGBIGAY at NAGBIGKAS ng KANYANG PANGALAN kay MOISES.

Heto po ang sabi ng Exodus 3:15:
"God spoke further to Moses, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites: The LORD [YAHWEH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. "This is my name forever; this is my title for all generations."



Baka sabihin po ng BALIK ISLAM na "hindi YAHWEH kund YHWH lang ang NAKALAGAY sa ORIHINAL na TEKSTO sa HEBREO."

AYON po rito sa BALIK ISLAM ay PARTIKULAR LANG daw po sa YHWH ang WALANG VOWELS. Ka-IGNORANTEHAN na naman po NIYA IYAN.

YHWH po ang NAKALAGAY pero COMMON SENSE po na HINDI SASABIHIN ng DIYOS na ANG PANGALAN NIYA ay LETRANG Y, LETRANG H, LETRANG W, at LETRANG H.

Natural po, MAY BIGKAS ang PANGALAN ng DIYOS. Ang BIGKAS diyan ay YAHWEH.

Pero ano po itong WALA naman daw VOWELS ang YHWH?

Totoo po iyan pero HINDI LANG PO ang PANGALAN ng DIYOS na YHWH ang WALANG VOWELS noong UNANG PANAHON. LAHAT ng KASULATANG SEMITIC o KATULAD ng HEBREO ay WALANG VOWELS.

Mababasa po ninyo iyan dito sa Semitic Skeleton Writing na nasa JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA rin.

Ibig sabihin, HINDI LANG PANGALAN ng DIYOS ang WALANG VOWELS kundi LAHAT ng mga NAUNANG KASULATAN ng mga HEBREO ay WALANG VOWELS.

KITA po NINYO? HINDI IYAN ALAM nitong BALIK ISLAM dahil NAGMAMARUNONG LANG SIYA.

Kung ALAM lang po siguro niya iyan ay HINDI SIYA NALOKO at HINDI NAILIGAW para TUMALIKOD kay KRISTO.



Ngayon, SA KABILA po na WALANG VOWELS ang mga KASULATAN ng mga HEBREO ay ALAM PO ng mga TAO NOON ang BIGKAS ng PANGALAN ng DIYOS.

IBINIGAY po ng DIYOS ang KANYANG PANGALAN kay MOISES, KUMPLETO pati BIGKAS, sa Ex 3:15.

Ayon sa BIBLICAL at HISTORICAL EXPERTS, ang TAGPO sa Ex 3:14 ay NANGYARI sa pagitan ng 1500 at 1400 BC.

KAILAN po HINDI na BINANGGIT o BINIGKAS ng mga HUDYO ang PANGALAN ng DIYOS?

Noon lang pong 300 BC o THIRD CENTURY BC, ayon sa JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA.

MAKIKITA po natin diyan na MULA 1400 BC hanggang 300 BC ay GINAMIT at BINIGKAS ng mga ISRAELITA ang PANGALAN ng DIYOS.

ALAM NILA ang BIGKAS ng YHWH o ang PANGALAN ng DIYOS.

NOON pong HINDI na BINIBIGKAS ang PANGALAN ng DIYOS ay SINO LANG po ba ang HINDI NAGBIGKAS? LAHAT po ba ng TAO?

HINDI po. MGA HUDYO LANG.

Ang IBANG TAO na NASA PALIGID ng HUDEA o MGA HINDI HUDYO ay GINAMIT at BINIGKAS PA RIN ang PANGALAN ng DIYOS.

KASAMA sa mga PATULOY na GUMAMIT at BUMIGKAS sa PANGALAN ng DIYOS ay ang mga SAMARITANO na BAHAGI ng ISRAEL BAGO HUMIWALAY sa HUDEA noong 922 BC.

Noong IPAGBAWAL sa HUDEA ang PAGBIGKAS ng PANGALAN ng DIYOS, ang MGA SAMARITANO ay PATULOY na BINIGKAS ang PANGALAN ng DIYOS.

At noong KUMALAT ang KRISTIYANISMO sa SAMARIA at MARAMING SAMARITANO ang NAGING KRISTIYANO ay NADALA ng mga SAMARITANO ang TAMANG BIGKAS ng PANGALAN ng DIYOS. Iyan ang dahilan kung bakit ALAM ng MGA KRISTIYANO ang TAMANG BIGKAS sa PANGALAN ng DIYOS.


Sabi sa JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA kaugnay sa BIGKAS ng mga SAMARITANO sa PANGALAN ng DIYOS:
written in Greek letters: (1) "Iaoouee," "Iaoue," "Iabe,"; (2) "Iao," "Iaho," "Iae"; (3) "Aia"; (4) "Ia." It is evident that (1) represents , (2) , (3) , and (4) . The three forms quoted under (1) are merely three ways of writing the same word, though "IABE" is designated as the Samaritan pronunciation.


Makikita po natin diyan na ang BIGKAS ng mga SAMARITANO sa PANGALAN ng DIYOS ay "IABE" na ang TUNOG ay "IAOOUEE" o "IAOUE."

Kapag INILAPAT sa "YHWH" ay MABILIS nating MAKIKITA ang BIGKAS na "YAHWEH."


So, IMBENTO po ba ng mga KRISTIYANO ang BIGKAS na YAHWEH?

HINDI po. GALING po IYAN MISMO sa mga SAMARITANO na TUNAY na NAKAKAALAM sa BIGKAS ng PANGALAN ng DIYOS.


Ngayon, KAHIT po ang SEKTANG "SAKSI ni JEHOVAH" ay UMAMIN na "YAHWEH" ang PINAPABORAN ng mga JEWISH SCHOLARS na TAMANG BIGKAS ng PANGALAN ng DIYOS.

Heto po ang sabi ng mga SAKSI ni JEHOVAH sa AKLAT NILANG Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 6:
HEBREW SCHOLARS GENERALLY FAVOR "YAHWEH" as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Halelu-Yah (meaning "Praise Yah, you people!"). (Ps 104:35; 150:1, 6) Also, the forms Yehoh', Yoh, Yah, and Ya'hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names of Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh…Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as "Yahuwa," "Yahuah," or "Yehuah."



NAKIKITA po NINYO?

HINDI po MGA KRISTIYANO ang NAGSASABI na "YAHWEH" ang BIGKAS ng PANGALAN ng DIYOS. MGA HEBREW SCHOLARS po.

SUMANGAYON din lang ang MGA KRISTIYANO dahil IYAN ang ALAM MISMO ng MGA UNANG KRISTIYANO na NAGMULA PA noong UNANG SIGLO.


WALA lang ALAM itong BALIK ISLAM na ITO kaya PURO MALI ang SINASABI.