2 thoughts. First twhid is nowhere found in Qur’ān anymore than Trinity is in the Bible. Also, when one examines what "one" means in Islam we find the same complexity in Sunni theology as we do in the Jesus movement. God isn't simply one. His essence "dhat" is one but he has uncreated attritubes "sifat" that are disinguishable from Allah but not separable. While the Islam tradition disuptes "person" as a key difference the glaring correlation remains. God's oneness has complexity. He is one in essence and somehow distinguishable through his attributes. Of course, almost no Muslim or Christian considers the depth of these assertions but the correlation remains intact. God is one. God's oneness isn't as simple as some would like it to be. It is only in the New Testament where we find how useful the present-tense knowledge of salvation before death becomes the good news the world has always been waiting for. Paul, I leave you with John 5:24. Do you know you have eternal life, will not be judged and have crossed over from death to life? What 2 conditions must you fulfil according to Jesus the Messiah? If you fulfill these 2 conditions would know you have eternal life or not? If not, why not? When one has this knowledge EVERYTHING CHANGES.

Qur’ān states that is a confirming book in an Arabic tongue. Do you think it would say confirming if the previous book it is confirming is corrupted on the level that traditional Muslims state it is?

46:12 Sahih International: And before it was the scripture of Moses to lead and as a mercy. And this is a confirming Book in an Arabic tongue to warn those who have wronged and as good tidings to the doers of good.

He sent do Qur’ān confirming the Taurat and Injil.

3:3 "He has sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming what was before it, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.”

this is true in a simplistic sense but with more careful examination one is invited to face the qira'at which early Islamic tradition leaves room for multiple readings worthy of recitation for prayer. Combine this with the wide range of inquiry Qur’ān readers have had over the Islamic tradition one finds "unified" to be quite un-unified.

While I don't have a significant disagreement here it is worth notiing 2 things. First, Al Fatiah is often considered a prayer to Allah, making this claim of the divine voice peculiar. Second, Much of the Qur’ān appears in a genre that retells stories from other sources including the Hebrew Bible. This is also not convincing to be the divine voice. Nonetheless anyone who claims God has spoken through books has some sort of claim similar to this.

I agree.

an important word but notice how he doesn't use it of influential Muslims a moment later. Instead he used "luminaries." This isn't accidental.

Of course Islam has spiritual and intellectual sophistication. Qur’ān is birthed from the Biblical tradition.

Here I'd like to offer some questions. How do you, reader answer these?

Have you the forgiveness of your sins? 2. Have you peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ?[^2] 3. Have you the witness of God's Spirit with your spirit that you are a child of God?[^3] 4. Is the love of God shed abroad in your heart?[^4] 5. Has no sin, inward or outward, dominion over you?[^5]

[^1]: James 5:16 (NIV)[^ 5.16] Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. [^2]: Romans 5:1 (NIV)[^ 5.1] Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, [^3]: Romans 8:16 (NIV)[^ 8.16] The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. [^4]: Romans 5:5 (NIV)[^ 5.5] And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. [^5]: Romans 6:14 (NIV)[^ 6.14] For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

finally, he says it. certainty. This I suspect is at the root of Paul's faith journey. I wonder how he understands this word in light of Islam? If he is "certain" today, how does he defend this? How is it in light of one avoiding the ditch of radical skepticism and radial certainty?

2 things are worth noting. First, the resurrection of Jesus is what began the Jesus movement not the kind of preservation we have today of the New Testament. I offer my reader a question. If Jesus is more fundamentally the Injil (Good News) what are the implications for your faith? If the written account that later became a book is a secondary form of the Gospel or New Covenant what are the implications for your faith? Second, since both Metzger and Ehrman both agreed that no doctrine is in dispute as we have the text of the New Testament today than what does this do to impact Ehrman's argument regarding the extant manuscript tradition's many variants? Also, how does the Qur’ān reader make sense of the settled text of the New Testament rougly 250 years before P Muhammad found 600 miles from Mecca in light of the evidence of Jeusus' followers all around the Hijaz during the life of P Muhammad especially in light of 5:47 when the people of the Gospel are told to judge by the gospel otherwise they are defiantly disobedient? If the gospel was corrupt before P Muhammad's ministry would Allah tell people to judge by a corrupt book? If the gospel was changed after P Muhammad's life how do you account for the widespread tradition of Jesus' followers?

any coherent reading of Qur’ān which states that God is nearer than the jugluar vein forces that God is BOTH transcendent and immanent. This is helpful by seeing how Islamic scholars answer "where is Allah?" You will find the same challenges. when you look at the New Covennat you see precisely how God is near in the Word, made flesh and the Spirit poured out. While still mantaining God's transcendence, primarily seen through the Father. This is much more satisfying and coherent. See Yasir Qadhi on this here https://youtu.be/vfzywp_j_a4?si=kVTdYKLpZXpORLtW&t=747

if this is understood to mean God does not have sex this statement could very clearly be of the Father and would be orthodox.

does Paul do this with the Islamic tradition or is he happy to step back when the text isn't like he wants it? Again, this is dangerous water to tread in after all we are taking about Truth and eternity.

This is dangerous waters. When one begins to demand the verses of God to say it 'like we want it." God have mercy on Paul and anyone of us who do this. Its much better to ask Allah to guide us in the meaning of the text. Its clear in the Hebrew Bible Daniel 7's Son of Man is a divine figure and this is Jesus' favorite self identifying term. He also is the Messiah which 2 Samuel 7. both of these passages state this rule is forever. Who do we anticipate will rule forever?

the New Testament asserts Jesus made himself equal with God multiple times. But notice how Paul says this on the back of the overly simplified axiom "Jesus is God." He explains him to not be "co equal" by saying how can he be God if he himself calls his Father, God? see John 5:18, Mark 2:5–7, John 5:22–23, etc.

Once again notice this axiom. If you are a Qur’ān reader and familiar with the tradition of P Muhammad you know this axiom evokes all kinds of questions. Jesus is God in a body. Another helpful axiom is Jesus is God's Eternal Word in a body.

This is quite possibly the worst statement made in this article. When one is in love with God they want to know God. What better place to know God than by his written word? With careful study one comes away with Jesus is BOTH fully divine and fully human. One CANNOT favor either. For example see the heresy of Docetism.

The simplist way to say this without confusion is not Jesus is God (though this is true but in a qualified sense). It is better to say Jesus is God in the flesh.

I and the Father are one. If you have seen me you have seen the Father. I am in the Father and the Father is in me. When Paul is consistent to let verses like these speak to him ALONG WITH verse that show Jesus being subordinate to the Father one begins to explore how these are logically coherent. I won't take this on here.

see Mark 14:62 and ask yourself, if the High Priest seems confused about what Jesus just asserted. Is it better to say, how can Jesus be claiming these things? and could the High Priest be right in thinking Jesus is committing blasphemy? Remember, the Jews wanted to kill the Messiah because of blasphemy but couldn't get the Romans to do it on that basis. They had to turn to Jesus being a King.

careful language again.

Yes, if only Jesus the Messiah, didn't claim to be a king (my kingdom is not of this world," calls himself God's Son, evoking the divine figure in Daniel 7 who receives ritual obeisance (see Pelach in Aramaic). forgives sin as if its the prerogative. dwells inside of a believer, has all authority in heaven, etc. Also, not to mention is depicted as sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven (not standing, or prostrating. Also he is involved in the creation of the cosmos as God's Word, which Qur’ān confirms.

Here are a short list of verses regarding the Kingdom of God coming in Jesus the Messiah....

1. Jesus explicitly declares the Kingdom has arrived in him Mark 1:14–15 (NIV)

“Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!’”

Key point: “The time has come” (πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός) signals fulfillment—God’s reign is no longer future only; it has arrived with Jesus.

Luke 4:18–21 (NIV)

“He began by saying to them, ‘Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.’”

Key point: Jesus identifies himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s kingdom promises. The kingdom is present because the King is present.

1. The Kingdom is present because Jesus is exercising divine authority Matthew 12:28 (NIV)

“But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Key point: The kingdom is not merely announced—it is actively invading and overpowering Satan’s domain through Jesus.

Luke 11:20 (NIV)

“But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Key point: Echoes Exodus imagery (“finger of God”)—Jesus is enacting a new exodus, a classic kingdom motif.

1. The Kingdom is embodied in the person of Jesus Luke 17:20–21 (NIV)

“Nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

Key point: The kingdom is not a location but a reality present in Jesus himself, standing among them.

Matthew 11:4–6 (NIV)

“The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised…”

Key point: Jesus answers John the Baptist not with a definition but with messianic kingdom signs from Isaiah.

1. Jesus identifies himself as the King John 18:36–37 (NIV)

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king.”

Key point: Jesus affirms kingship but reframes it—the kingdom is present but not worldly in its methods.

Matthew 28:18 (NIV)

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

Key point: Universal authority = royal authority. The kingdom is fully inaugurated in the risen Messiah.

1. Apostolic reflection: the Kingdom has already begun in Christ Colossians 1:13 (NIV)

“For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves.”

Key point: Believers are already transferred into Christ’s kingdom—present reality, not only future hope.

Romans 14:17 (NIV)

“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”

Key point: The kingdom is a Spirit-empowered reality inaugurated through Jesus.

If Paul was to take the Historical Critical Method from any one of these 3 Christian scholars his faith would be on much shakier ground. Paul often appeals to the reliability of the Qur’ān (which has a very early textual continuity with exception to the Sanaʿa Palimpsest) but when one examines the formation of Hadith collections it is an entirely different story. Especially when you consider Jonthan AC Brown's interview on Thinking Muslim regarding how Hadith are functionally more important than Qur’ān itself. https://youtu.be/bIkwJNDL5v0?si=Gdf-jA7pVIRrfdHx&t=608

If some scholars have shared my thinking that confirms my thinking is correct? Paul doesn't do this when interpreting Qur’ān.

Its quite interesting that Paul's scholarly discourse is NOT held with the same scrutiny when looking at the range of scholarly discourse in Qur’ān. Especially when Islamic scholarly discourse is consistent with the New Testament. For the discerning reader this is my broad contention for the seeker of truth. If the New Testament is reliable at the time of P Muhammad ministry (which Qur’ān confirms) why not reject traditions that interpret Qur’ān otherwise?) Especially when Qur’ān readers much believe in the previous books and the people of the gospel are defiantly disobedient if they don't judge by the gospel.

careful language again. notice how he implies if he should have some doubts it might mean that others who have doubts might too head in a negative direction.

Its worth noting that Paul's swing from "decidedly fundamentalist" to liberal theory of the formation of the Hebrew Bible is quite a swing. See my note on confidence being BETWEEN radical skepticism and radiacl certainty.

Inherited? Much of the time he positions himself as a seeker but the "apparent failed prophesy" was his inherited. If you watch Blogging Theology you see he is very intentional to surround himself with books. But this understanding of the verse from his "devotional framework" wasn't enough to example coherent scholarly offerings of the passages meaning.

there are basic answers to this passage that are coherent and compelling. Here a 2 possibilities. Of course, the "apparent failed prophesy" seemed to win out for Paul.

1. The Most Contextual Reading: First-Century Fulfillment (Preterist view)

Meaning: “This generation” refers to Jesus’ contemporaries (those alive in the 1st century).

How it fits:

In the Gospels, genea (“generation”) consistently means the people then living

The Temple was destroyed in AD 70, about 40 years later

Many of the signs Jesus mentions (false messiahs, persecution, wars, siege of Jerusalem) are documented in that period

Conclusion: Jesus is saying that the events leading up to and including the destruction of the Temple would happen within their lifetime — and historically, they did.

This view is held by many biblical scholars and fits especially well with:

Matthew 24:1–35

Luke 21’s parallel account (which explicitly mentions Jerusalem surrounded by armies)

1. “These things” = Near events, not everything

Some scholars note that “all these things” refers specifically to:

The signs Jesus had just described up to verse 34

Not necessarily the final return of the Son of Man (which he then says no one knows the day or hour of)

This creates a near / far distinction:

Near: Temple destruction (within that generation)

Far: Final return and consummation (unknown timing)

again an assumption.

again the assumption.

This is the first occurance of several carefully crafted phrases. "appeared to suggest." Watch how the unsuspecting reading might just be encouraged to accept the viewpoint offered as fact without being offered other options for the passage. One who thinks critically would find doing this in Qur’ān would leave its reader more bewildered at many turns far worse than the New Testament.

Were you seeking confidence or certainty? Confidence is between radial certainty and radical skepticism.

What was it about your "decidedly fundamentalist" form of Christianity that attracted you? Speak specifically to this particular understanding of "fundamentalist" that made sense for you at the time. Try to focus on what you were experiencing in that season (without reinterpreting it with your current understanding of Islam).

We are only at the beginning of this article but when we think about the sacred what is more gradeur, a physical building where we encounter the sacred or the God of the universe making a people his residence? Scandal and true grandeur.

a church is never a building. It is always a people. it comes from the greek word Ekklesia which had a neutral sense often translated as "assembly" It was more inclusive than the Jewish "synagogoe" which had begun to take on a special meaning for "assembly."

How do you know you had never really understood what a coherent view of the Injil is?