CIRA International reveal Jewish trinity; God's spirit is distinct? and who is the angel of the lord?

In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 6:4 - Scripture Twisting 101"

In the HB, the term "holy spirit" (in which "holy" is an adjective) never appears. But there is ruach hakodesh (lit. the spirit/wind of holiness). It is the pre-condition for prophethood, endowing an individual with divine intuition, wisdom Job32:8, warnings and glad tidings, as well as the ability to communicate God's direct words 2Sam23:2. Such person becomes God's representative on Earth and then either reforms or leads the Israelites to victory.

As a side note, Trinitarians claiming that this ruach is a divine entity separate from God the Father must explain verses like Judges9:23,1Sam16:14,Isa19:14 speaking of

"an evil spirit from God"

and of

"a spirit of perverseness".

If, as trinitarians say, God's holy spirit is a divine entity, God's evil spirit should also be a different divine entity. 1Kings19:11 is even more damning to this idea

"And He said: "Go out and stand in the mountain before the Lord, Behold! the Lord passes, and a great and strong wind (b'ruach) splitting mountains and shattering boulders before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind (ha-ruach). And after the wind an earthquake-not in the earthquake was the Lord".

This spirit of God first appears in Gen1. It is neither qualified as holy nor evil, it could be any of the 2 since God directly creates both good and evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14, and neither is it described as taking part independently in the act of creation. In fact its mention is preceded by the presence of already created worldly entities, like the waters and the earth.

The spirit/wind of holiness in the talmud is an agent sent by God to allow prophecy and revelation (Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 1.1,Sotah 16d). A well known teaching in rabbinic 2nd temple literature is that the end of prophecy was accompanied with the departure of the holyspirit "From the time that the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died, the holy spirit was withdrawn from Israel". The RUACH is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses Num11:17,25,29,Isa42:1,44:3,Joel3:1. 

All this parallels in many ways with the Quran's description of the RUH that descends to the prophets to give them inspiration. The spirit of God is certainly an agent of God, separate from Him and fully encompassed by His will. The spirit being of/from God, does not entail him being a separate divine entity, anymore than the hand, arm or eyes of God are separately divine. Even if one turns to the highly esoteric and cryptic Zohar, believed to have originated somewhere in the 1st-2nd century CE when Judaism had been infiltrated by Graeco-Roman concepts, one might find notions of God having different aspects through which He interacts with the world. However none of those aspects are ever manifested in human form and neither are they separate entities to be individually worshipped.

As to Gen16:7-13 The Hebrew for angel/malak means a messenger, as noted by one of those youtubers. It is not "the" angel/messenger, as deceptively rendered in most Christian translations (see also Zech1:12). It is just "an" angel/messenger, one among the many which God dispatches to perform a specific task. By definition, one cannot be the sender of a message, as well as the messenger itself. This angelic  messenger was acting as God's agent to Hagar. He was given the power to do what he said he would do in the verse. After telling her that he will multiply her progeny exceedingly, the messenger tells her to name the first of that progeny, Ishmael

"for the Lord/YHWH has heard your affliction".

The messenger's promise to make her progeny fruitful came as a result of her affliction, which YHWH, not the messenger, saw and solved, through His messenger. As previously noted, there are different such angelic messengers of God, elsewhere said to be under God's command or asking for information 2Sam24:16,Zech1:12-13.

This is nothing strange for the HB, including the Quran to have God acting in this world through different means, without him being actually present, or having agents speaking on His behalf. That is why for instance no Jew reading Isa48:16 would even remotely think that God is sending His own self. Rather it is the prophet relating God's speech, who interjects. This is seen from the next verse

"So said the Lord your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; "I am the Lord your God..."

There is thus an interjection by the prophet, from the end of v16 to the beginning of v17 before the prophet re-introduces God's direct speech. There is no confusion of characters in the Abrahamic traditional understanding of these passages, portraying the entity through whom God manifests His will in the world as God Himself. 

The notion of a God with multiple persons in One, or Who manifests in separate entities with a common divine essence, never crossed the minds of those that wrote these stories. Yet out of all people, the Israelites are known for their propensity to stray from strict monotheism into the worship of deities besides God. Nothing should have stopped them from similarly worshipping those entities through whom God acts in the world, as divine distinct persons, had there been any hint in their minds to such concepts from their scriptures. But until the emergence of Christianity in a Roman theological background, no Jew is ever found holding such beliefs. Much less Abraham and Hagar as depicted in the aforementioned passage, nor Jacob Gen31:13 who was similarly visited in dreams by God's angelic messenger, spoken to in a very similar manner as Hagar was. They never worshipped these supposed divine manifestations yet it is claimed that they saw different entities, sometimes simultaneously, identifying themselves as divine? 

One only finds that kind of confusion among the Helenized people transposing their Greco-Roman theological background into these passages, disregarding the rules of the language and the culture of those that penned them. This disconnect between Trinitarian theology and the scriptures that should support it, if not, foreshadow it, does not deter Christians from repeating such passages in their arguments. What is worse is their seeking confirmation in rabbinic writings, those very people that abhor their theology as idolatry. The Quran, although it insists on dissociating Jesus from the false teachings attributed to him, never labels Christians as idolaters. Among those rabbinic sources in which Christians attempt finding confirmation for beliefs, which those very rabbis actually loath, is the Zohar. This mystical and cryptic book is known for its complexity and ambiguity, hence the rabbis highly discouraging the layman approaching it. Christians will claim for instance that the 10 "sefirot" are aspects of God just like the 3 persons of the Trinity. In a nutshell, the sefirot are neither aspects of God nor distinctly divine. They are 10 different ways a person can perceive the one and the same entity of God. For example when light is seen through a prism, this one beam of light is perceived in different colors, but it is still the same one and only beam of light. That is why, again, no Jew ever worshipped 10 different divine "aspects" of God. And if Christians are so keen in seeking traces of polytheism in the Zohar, then such passages abound, depending on how one understands certain bizarre esoteric concepts. The first cause of the universe is depicted as a male god than united with a female counterpart, resulting in male and female lesser gods. Their purpose in turn is to unite sexually, and their union is either prevented or allowed depending on the level of righteousness and unity of the first humans, which failed, then of the Jewish people throughout history. The words of the Torah itself are extensions of the divine source, manifesting within the Jews that read and recite it.

Christians in short have nothing explicit pre-christianity endorsing something close to a multiplicity of the godhead. They will thus either rely in their apologetics on non-Jews or on academics, who by definition need to make unconventional, controversial observations to hope to be published. Had the notion of trinity, incarnation or anything christological been floating among 1st century Jews then Jesus would have been explicit in claiming his supposed divinity. Yet Christians themselves will say that the reason Jesus kept his true identity secret was because his contemporaries, including his own followers were unprepared to hear such ideas.

Alan F Segal's best selling work, unsurprisingly among the missionaries, is one of those aforementioned controversial works. It is based on a misunderstanding of rabbi Akiva, who lived in the 2nd century CE and who was murdered by the Romans. He is rebuked in the Talmud for misrepresenting the aggadah, which wasnt his field of expertise. He is corrected, not for speaking of 2 powers among 2 different heavenly personalities, much less of Jesus or the messiah, but for making

"the Divine presence profane, presenting it as though one could sit next to him. Rather the 2 thrones are designated for 2 different purposes; one for judgement and one for righteousness" (Chagigah14a:5).

His misrepresentation of the aggadah, due to his lack of experience in it, made it seem to the layman, especially with a hellenistic theological baggage as was the case with many Christian converts among the greco-roman population, and even the hellenized Jews, as if the 2 thrones are meant for God and another entity next to him. The 2 thrones however are not meant for 2 entities rather for 2 purposes.

After the good news is conveyed to her, Hagar gratefully turns to God who told her, through His messenger that He had seen her suffering

"You are the God of seeing".

This is a similar expression as the one ending Muslim prayers

"You are the Seeing, the Hearing".

She continues with an expression of amazement that can be translated in different ways, the closest to the literal wording being

"have I seen him here also after I have seen?"

Hagar is wondering to have seen God's emissary in her situation and location, a second time just as she had previously seen him. According to Jewish understanding, she had seen such agents of God in Abraham's house, which she assumed to be normal since he was a prophet. She was not expecting they would come to her specifically. Hagar's amazement was unrelated to seeing God Himself. At the end of the passage, she names the location

"the living One who sees me".

The place isnt named after Hagar's supposed experience of seeing God Himself, which would have certainly been more pertinent. Instead she labels it the place where God saw her, because this is where He saw her affliction, then sent her glad tidings through His angelic messenger. Seeing God is a unique experience, and much more significant than God seeing His creatures and answering their afflictions, which is a common belief in Abrahamic religions. Why would then the place be named after her relatively insignificant experience?

CIRA International put words in their savior's mouth; did Jesus say he is God?

In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 6:4 - Scripture Twisting 101"

Jesus nowhere made any claim to be God, neither does the bible say anywhere to confess Jesus is God. He isnt called YHWH anywhere and neither did Abraham or Isaac worship a trinity, a god called Jesus or holy spirit. Nobody ever misunderstood God's unique, indivisible essence, nor misapplied divinity to terms such as messiah or "son of God". 

Ambiguities arose when the Graeco-Roman world merged with the Abrahamic, Semitic religion of the HB. Gentile Greeks and Romans, the main targets for conversion by post-Jesus missionary activity, found a fertile ground for continuity of their ancient religions in those various terminologies and events describing the functioning of the God of the HB. Those passages however never hinted at a possible multiplicity of godhead in Semitic thought. 

There is a well established pattern of God, repeatedly identifying Himself whether in the Hebrew scriptures or the Quran with phrases such as "I am the Lord". The literal terminologies "tawhid" or "Jewish monotheism" arent found in the Quran or the HB, but just as tawhid/divine transcendance is a concept stamped on every page of the Quran, Jewish monotheism is unambiguous. The God of the HB makes clear that worship is His prerogative only, and no entity besides Him is seen making the same claim. So much so that the HB uses sometimes crude imageries to refer to Israel's spiritual "adultery" whenever it worshiped something else than its "jealous" God. It is then legitimate for those opposing the Trinitarian doctrine to demand from Trinitarians an explicit, unambiguous statement from Jesus, or any of the other members of their godhead like the holy ghost, independently claiming divinity, or asking to be worshiped. No such statements exist, leaving Trinitarians with a doctrine built from assumptions, suppositions and by piecing ambiguous verses together. Its called "proof texting." 

This method violates two of the paramount points of scriptural understanding: 1) Use clear verses to explain the unclear ones, and 2) gather all of the pertinent verses and study them completely before reaching a conclusion on a doctrine. And even if one were to grant Trinitarian apologist's interpretations of these scattered and isolated verses as correct, still these verses together only provide fractional support for the doctrine. The same can be said of other foundational Christian themes like inherited sin and forgiveness through blood atonement exclusively, which are all based on incomplete references. 

None of the verses where God is identified, either by Himself or others, state that a multiplicity of beings is meant, nor whether these separate divine entities are co-equal or subservient to God, nor whether one is to worship each of those entities separately. The vague verses and passages used as a basis for the potential multiplicity of beings can perfectly be understood without references to Trinity or the incarnation, as was always the case in Semitic thought. Again, there are clear and unambiguous verses denying that God can be seen Ex33:20,Jn1:17 that He has a form Isa40:17,25, or that any representation of Him is to be worshiped Deut4:15. 

Although God's unlimited attributes are by essence beyond human comprehension, God's identity however is not. Beyond understanding doesnt entail inherently contradictory. For example to notion of God being eternal is humanly unfathomable, but not inherently contradictory. But a single one and same entity, Jesus, who is at the same time omniscient and ignorant is contradictory. God is thus certainly beyond comprehension but not illogical and absurd as a square circle or a trinity would be. 

It is obvious that the primary reason for revelation is to identify the Entity requiring exclusive worship. Only one and the same being is found identifying itself and by others as God. As there are no cases of a multiplicity of beings identified, by themselves or others as God then it follows that only One and the same being is always meant whenever the Bible speaks of God. This is the logical premise of the Bible. If Trinitarians on the other hand want to identify a separate set of beings as one and the same God, they are then forced to accept the Biblical premise that no 2, 3 or 4 DIFFERENT beings are identified as God in their Bible, only One and the same being everytime. It follows that these separate beings must be identical to one another if they are identified with God. In a nutshell, if D has the value 1 and that A, B, C are all equal to D then it must mean that A, B, C have the value of 1, making them all identical to one another. Trinitarians however need to keep the 3 components of the godhead distinct from one another. To do so, they have no choice but to conjecture outside Biblical patterns to formulate their beliefs. They begin with the unbiblical notion that a seperate set of beings can identify as God all the while remaining distinct and different from one another. This however results in the problem of non transferability of attributes within 2 identical entities. If for instance father and son have all the attributes of God but that Father and son have different attributes then it must mean that they each possess attributes God does not have. 

By rejecting the biblical premise above, Trinitarians begin piling up more problems until the greatest of their scholars end up admitting their ignorance of the concept, it being an impenetrable mystery. Some will even hail that mystery as evidence of their God's superiority since He is above any human concept, although in reality it is the Bible's own premises that conflict with this notion. Again, the problem stems from Christian terms and proposed solutions that do not add up. The external observer merely shows the inconsistencies of those attempts, so the comparison between the "Christian God" with the One others worship isnt appropriate. Further, if the superiority of the triune concept of a god resides in its incompatibility with human understanding, then no Trinitarian has grounds to criticize other beliefs if they are found to be illogical and contrary to empirical data. In fact with that line of reasoning, the more absurd a belief system is, the superior it becomes. Sure, a supreme and transcendental God is a simple concept in comparison. "God is One" was never meant to be a complicated statement. Christian thinkers know this, and have been wrestling with the logical inconsistencies of their creed for 2000 years, yet no progress has been made in resolving the contradictions of the notion of incarnation.

Even at a most basic level of the doctrine, Trinitarians have been struggling, since the first councils of the church fathers down to our times and the Phd thesis of Christian apologists and philosophers, to get around the charge of tri-theism; how does 3 distinct "persons", each fully divine, not result in 3 distinct gods? To add to the problem, these 3 distinct persons have 3 distinct wills/consciences. Although traditionally, trinitarians have held that the trinity has one mind/conscience, this position in unsubstantiated scripturally and logically. In the Bible, each person of the godhead speaks in terms of "I" which cannot be mutually shared. For example when the Father states "you are my son with whom i am well pleased" this proposition cannot be shared in the mind of the son or the holyspirit. This results in 3 minds and 3 wills with each being separately divine. Those among Christendom that argued against Social trinitarians precisely did so on the basis that it would result in tritheism.

The concept of Monarchia, where only the Father is uncaused, while the Spirit and Son are "eternally" caused is an unhelpful ad hoc. This unconventional way of speaking doesnt solve tritheism as there still ultimately are three divine persons. As they have three distinct personalities they must be counted as distinct gods. Due to the unavoidable fact that counting is done based on identity, Catholic and orthodox scholars admit that in a sense, monotheism can include multiple deities. Others will try avoiding that conclusion by going to the extent of trying to redefine how to count. Counting could be done based on unity of nature. 3 distinct human persons could be considered as one man just as 3 distinct divine persons are one God. Besides the fallacy of giving a material example to explain the immaterial, how does one count the 3 appart from oneanother? If their distinct identity doesnt make them countable, as would be the case conventionally, this means we only have one divine entity, thus negating trinitarianism and resulting in basic monotheism. If we were to say that conventional counting is inapplicable to the ineffable divine being, can we then count the incarnate, material person of Jesus which contains the fullness of the divine being? If yes then we can in fact count the divine being, if not then we cannot count Jesus appart from other things like a tree or a rock. Ultimately, if the divine being is uncountable, can we even say that He is one? Trinitarians will very often put arbitrary limits, unfounded in their texts, when it comes to what applies or not to God, what is similar to Him or not, whenever an aspect of their doctrine reaches a dead end. For example the bible notoriously uses anthropomorphisms, meaning there are similitudes between God and the material world, as well as worldly concepts. We understand many things about God, otherwise we wouldnt know what we are worshiping. Why is the idea of counting God something unfathomable?

At this point trinitarians pile up more unconventional terminologies and hypothesis to salvage their doctrine, pushing the whole idea further into the realm of mystery. 

The Quran gives them a simple warning out of this labyrinth of confusion 

4:171"People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs"

Jesus' creed:

Mk12:29-30"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment".

Jesus, coming from a long line of messengers and prophets sent to mankind was thus confirming what Moses uttered approximately 1500 years earlier in

Deut6:4"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"

and 600 years later came the seal of the prophets with the final reminder to mankind, the Quran repeating once more this ultimate truth

2:163"And your God is one God, there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful".

CIRA International prove trinity; Echad in Deut6:4?

In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 6:4 - Scripture Twisting 101"

God in the HB is Echad/one Exod9:7,Eccl4:8. Each of the things listed are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family, see also Gen1:5,2:24,Numb13:23. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. When God told Abraham to take his son to "one/echad of the mountains" did He mean to divide his son upon a compound of mountains? When Hagar put her boy under "one/echad of the shrubs" did she cut him up under multiple plants? It is the height of absurdity to suggest that a passage refuting idolatry and multiple deities, would tell the people that "your Lord is a unity of divine beings". 

When husband and wife are figuratively "one" for instance, the multiplicity of subjects is made clear in the sentence. 

Nothing presupposes in the Schema, that the intent is figurative 

Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”. 

Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism. Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one". Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12. The Schema contains 2 core messages that are prevalent throughout the Jewish writing; nationalism and monotheism. YHWH is the God of Israel (our God), and this same YHWH is echad/one. It is one of the most blatant examples of what Biblical scholars have termed Jewish monolatry, the belief in one ethno-centered tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations. The infamous missionary corruption of a commentary from the Zohar, where the writer supposedly wonders at the threefold repetition of God's name in the Schema is a known 20th century forgery, absent from this Jewish book. In fact there is a quote from the Zohar saying 

"You are One but not in a countable sense" (Zohar petichat eliyahu). 

As to Yachid, it literally means "only". See Gen22 for example. To repeat, in Hebrew the word for one is echad (masculine) and ahat (feminine). Try telling a school kid to start counting with "yachid"...

Acts17apologetics get close to textual definition; paraclete is a spirit?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Declares: "Jesus Is the God of Muhammad!""

The paraclete is the spirit of truth, because of holding the correct belief in Jesus 1Jn4. He acts according to what he is inspired

Jn15:26,16:13-14"When the paraclete 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..he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me.."

Per Jn14:16 the Father is the only sender of the paraclete and none else. Jesus saying he will send the paraclete in Jn15:26 depends entirely on the will of the Father. As Jesus says, the paraclete comes from the Father and goes out from the Father. Jesus will send him to the world through his prayers Jn14:16 to the Father. The sending of the paraclete depends entirely and exclusively on the Father and Jesus saying he will send him simply means that he will ask God to send him per Jn14:16. It doesnt say the paraclete will come to the people speaking in Jesus' name, but that the Father will send him in Jesus' name meaning at his request as reflected in other translations, because Jesus will pray the Father for this

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete"

Muhammad the son of Ishmael is the result of the preceding prophets' prayers like Abraham' prayers to God in the Quran to raise a prophet among his descendants settled in the area that will bring them to the straight path.

Muhammad was given Al-Mizan (The Balance) and Al-Furqan (The Criterion) of truth and falsehood and told to

42:15"go on inviting, and go on steadfastly on the right way as you are commanded, and do not follow their low desires, and say: I believe in what Allah has revealed of the Book, and I am commanded to do justice between you: Allah is our Lord and your Lord; we shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds; no plea need there be (now) between us and you: Allah will gather us together, and to Him is the return".

Through the Criterion and the Balance, Muhammad truly convicted the world of sin for rejecting Jesus, he honored and testified about Jesus' true identity; his humanity, the truthfulness of his prophethood to the Jews ONLY and a precursor of the last prophet. He reminded those claiming to be Jesus' followers of all truth regarding his message

43:59,5:14-16,75"O People of the Book, There has come to you Our messenger to explain to you much of what you have concealed of the book and pardoning much. There has come to you from Allah a light and an obvious book. Allah guides thereby those who follow His pleasure into the ways of peace and brings them out of darkness into the light by His permission and guides them to a straight path....The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away".

Muhammad stayed with humanity forever, obviously through the Quran. How is the holyspirit with us today and forever? What is the instant effect to an individual, of the indwelling of the holyspirit according to every single time it occurs in the HB? The person becomes a prophet and starts prophesying. Where are those prophets today?

Acts17apologetics stuck in a tangled biblical web; multiple prophecies before end of times?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Declares: "Jesus Is the God of Muhammad!""

The phenomenon of collective revelation, as is alleged to have happened at Pentecost, through the descent of the holy spirit on several people at once, will only reoccur in the messianic age

Joel3:1"I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions".

This is the passage which the Christians link as the fulfillement of Jesus' prophecy of the paraclete, based on the faulty future tense in Jn14 as shown earlier. As stated in the following verses and preceding chapters, this will only happen in the end of times, and will be accompanied by obvious cataclysmic signs. This further shows that the holy spirit is always linked to the field of prophethood.

This, as a side note, poses a problem to the peculiar Christian notion of being filled with the holy spirit once they have accepted Christ and yet are unable to prophecy and never will be.  Similarly, no Christian today is able to "speak in tongues" as is alleged to have occurred at pentecost. Nothing prevents the miracle from being reproduced as the NT does not say the phenomenon ceased after pentecost. The purpose was to spontaneously evangelize in any audience's language, something missionaries are obviously unable to do today. Further, was the holyspirit limited that day, so that others who were present and heard the phenomenon Acts2:13"made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine"? The spirit left them out, their tongue was unworthy of being represented. To them, the spectacle was that of drunkards speaking unintelligibly. Where were Paul's interpreters when one desperately needs them 1Cor14? As Celsus, the early pagan intellectual opponent to Christians said

 "Having brandished these threats they then go on to add incomprehensible, incoherent, and utterly obscure utterances, the meaning of which no intelligent person could discover: for they are meaningless and nonsensical, and give a chance for any fool or sorcerer to take the words in whatever sense he likes".

Not a single of the well known criteria of the messianic age as outlined in the Hebrew Bible, have occurred until now, and neither were those criteria fulfilled at pentecost were God's spirit is said to have poured on several people as described in Joel. Yet we have Paul claiming the opposite throughout his writings, including Peter, based on that very messianic passage of Joel that negates the events of pentecost. The pentecost story cannot have occured as it is believed it did, and what descended on the people could not have been the holy spirit, let alone the paraclete.

There is a reason why the Pharisees in Acts2:13 mockingly alluded to these people on the day of pentecost as a group of drunkards, for their odd, erratic behavior and incomprehensible speech; this type of effect that the indwelling spirit of holiness supposedly had on them was something unheard of in the prophetic history. No prophet who received the holyspirit ever behaved in such a manner, whether the prophets of the HB down to the last Ishmaelite prophet.

Christians thus need to "loosen up" the definition of a prophet, despite it being firm and precise, in order to make place for their unscriptural ideas. The deeper difficulty however for Christians is that this passage from Joel, and other similar eschatological passages, rejects any attempt at identifying the end time king/messiah with Jesus. In addition to being "a" messiah, which requires the fulfilment of specific ritual and genealogical conditions which were never met in Jesus, the end times messiah also has to satisfy some lifetime requirements, including the global ingathering of the Jews, rebuilding of the temple, ushering of the age of unfaltering observance of the Law (which bellies by the way all of St Paul's innovations), universal peace, universal knowledge of God, blissful utopia, end of evil and sin, disease and death.

Obviously none of those criteria ever occurred anywhere near Jesus' era, and in fact the least that can be said is that the 1st century, its overall state of upheaval, was the antithesis of what the messianic era is supposed to be. 

There isn't a single prophecy saying the Messiah would come, die, be resurrected, and then return thousands of years later to BEGIN his mission. It in facts says he will accomplish these tasks within his own lifetime Isa42:4"He shall not fail or be crushed until he has set the right in the earth". That is why the idea of a suffering king messiah is inexistent in pre-Christian Judaism. The awaited figure is in fact expected to violently enforce the new world order. In view if this, Christians also need to explain why would anyone not see the "second coming" theory as an attempt to explain away Jesus' failure during his "first coming" to usher the messianic era.

Acts17apologetics have undeniable proof; textual evidence paraclete is holy ghost?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Declares: "Jesus Is the God of Muhammad!""

In Jn14:26 the paraclete is also called the "holy spirit" although the early Codex Syriacus omits "holy". The scribe that redacted that particular codex wasnt writing from memory but was copying from another manuscript. This shows again the well known evolving nature of the NT text, more particularily as regards the paraclete prophecy, progressively blurred, willingly or not, with mystical and abstract concepts.

In any case, the spirit of truth and the holy spirit refer to the same thing; the spirit of God indwelling those who believe Jesus to be God's envoy. Anyone holding that correct belief, including the paraclete can be termed the spirit of truth 1Jn4:2-3.

The paraclete, filled with the spirit of truth, only acts according to God's orders Jn15,16. This parallels with the prophecy in Deut18:18 where the prophet shall only speak what he hears, a personality guided by revelation. When the group of Israelites heard God speak at Sinai, received the holy spirit and became prophets Numb11:16-30 that was a specific event that would no longer happen in the future, per their own request fearing they would die, and God accepted their request. He decreed that the phenomenon of revelation will be a personal experience.

In the HB, the term "holy spirit" (in which "holy" is an adjective) never appears. But there is ruach hakodesh (lit. the spirit/wind of holiness). It is the pre-condition for prophethood, endowing an individual with divine intuition, wisdom Job32:8, warnings and glad tidings, as well as the ability to communicate God's direct words 2Sam23:2. Such person becomes God's representative on Earth and then either reforms or leads the Israelites to victory.

As a side note, Trinitarians claiming that this ruach is a divine entity seperate from God the Father must explain verses like Judges9:23,1Sam16:14,Isa19:14 speaking of

"an evil spirit from God"

and of

"a spirit of perverseness".

If, as trinitarians say, God's holy spirit is a divine entity, God's evil spirit should also be a different divine entity. 1Kings19:11 is even more damning to this idea

"And He said: "Go out and stand in the mountain before the Lord, Behold! the Lord passes, and a great and strong wind (b'ruach) splitting mountains and shattering boulders before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind (ha-ruach). And after the wind an earthquake-not in the earthquake was the Lord".

This spirit of God first appears in Gen1. It is neither qualified as holy nor evil, it could be any of the 2 since God directly creates both good and evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14, and neither is it described as taking part independantly in the act of creation. In fact its mention is preceded by the presence of already created wordly entities, like the waters and the earth.

The spirit/wind of holiness in the talmud is an agent sent by God to allow prophecy and revelation (Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 1.1,Sotah 16d). A well known teaching in rabbinic 2nd temple literature is that the end of prophecy was accompanied with the departure of the holyspirit "From the time that the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died, the holy spirit was withdrawn from Israel". The RUACH is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses Num11:17,25,29,Isa42:1,44:3,Joel3:1. 

All this parallels in many ways with the Quran's description of the RUH that descends to the prophets to give them inspiration. The spirit of God is certainly an agent of God, seperate from Him and fully encompassed by His will. The spirit being of/from God, does not entail him being a seperate divine entity, anymore than the hand, arm or eyes of God are seperately divine. Even if one turns to the highly esoteric and cryptic Zohar, believed to have originated somewhere in the 1st-2nd century CE when Judaism had been infiltrated by Graeco-Roman concepts, one might find notions of God having different aspects through which He interracts with the world. However none of those aspects are ever manifested in human form and neither are they seperate entities to be individually worshipped.

Acts17apologetics need to look at the broader picture; context of Jesus' prophecy?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Declares: "Jesus Is the God of Muhammad!""

The persecution and rejection of Jesus by his people, the murders of John the Baptist and Zechariah Matt23:30-37, along with the fact that punishement would be unleashed on the nation of Israel, were the main reasons why the apostles grieved.

To comfort their grief, Jesus gave them the glad tidings of the paraclete who would honor Jesus' name and bring justice to the world.

The Holy Spirit was already acting before Jesus, and during these times of sorrow for the apostles. The apostles already believed in Jesus, and according to Jn14:17 they even already experienced the indwelling of the holy spirit. If the paraclete was the holyspirit and not seperate from it then how could an indwelling phenomenon cure the reasons of their grief and bring justice considering it has always been present and did not solve anything. They grieved, among other reasons because the people did not believe in Jesus. Since the apostles already believed in Jesus then how does an indwelling paraclete resolve this particular grief?

By the time of their death, the Temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was sacked by the gentiles. So how did the situation change for Jesus' followers? How does the intangible paraclete judge and convict the guilty according to Jesus' prophecies, when many of the apostles were persecuted and killed, after Jesus and after the alleged descent of the holyspirit on them at pentecost Acts4-5,7–9,12:1, 13:42-51,14:2-5,19,17–18,24:5,26:9-11,Gal1:11-16,4:29,Phil3:5-7,1Thess2:14-16. Even some prophets who received the Holy Spirit were killed by the Israelite leadership, as Jesus reported Matt23:37. Such a prophecy about the paraclete being the indwelling holyspirit would never have consoled the apostles, and it is quite clear that by "another" paraclete Jesus was referring to the coming of "another" prophet.

The very first phrase of Jn14 is

"Do not let your hearts be troubled".

Jesus is clearing making this statement in the context of their total helplessness. In the precedent chapter Jn13 Jesus is speaking of his future betrayal, hinting to his death at the hands of the unbelievers. This added to their already existing sorrow from John and Zechariah's unjust murders which further emphasized their marginalisation and powerless situation. The disciples grieve, prior to the prophecy of the paraclete, at their master Jesus' rejection by his own people and over the fact that according to Matt24, and Jn16 they will all be persecuted and slaughtered as well as "hated by all nations because of me", as repeated in Jn15. They grieved over the coming abomination and destruction of the Temple because of their nation's rejection of Jesus, and their repeated transgressions. In Matt24 Jesus was predicting gloomy days ahead which put the apostles in great distress. Their grief is about what Jesus prophesized as a whole regarding Israel.

The prophecy of the paraclete comes at the climax of their grief, after he announces his disciples' future torments, his impending death, betrayal and denial by his close disciple

Jn16:6"Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief".

He comforts their troubled hearts by giving them the glad tidings of the paraclete, a powerful salvific figure who will put an end to this injustice which he and his followers suffered by judging the guilty, bringing justice and honoring Jesus in a world where he wasnt given any

Jn16"and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged"

he will convict those who rejected Jesus as a worthless liar. As Jesus prophesized many times in the NT, the rejectors were going to be punished for their rejection. For example, he alludes to this in the parable of the King, His Son, and the Servants. The paraclete will receive revelation, will establish justice and convict the guilty. That never happened in the life of the apostles. Men will see this person, and judgement will be laid down, because the people rejected Jesus.

Did the apostles ever judge the world and condemn the guilty after allegedly receiving the indwelling Paraclete at Pentecost? Did judgement ever descend on the gentiles at the hands of the apostles? It never did.

Jesus in those statements is speaking in prophetic terminology by addressing them directly as is the case of the long term prediction made in Deut18 where God addresses the ISraelite community directly, saying that a specific prophet will come to them, but the intent is for the future. In Jesus' days, the Pharisees still awaited the fulfillement of that prophecy and questionned John, asking him if he was "that prophet".

Even within the Greek writings, it is a recognized terminology to involve the audience in a long term prophecy. For example it is accepted that Jesus' second coming predictions, although explicitly spoken to the disciples and telling them that they will witness his return, was not meant for their generation.

Acts17apologetics cannot find the intangible spirit; paraclete is the same as holy ghost?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Declares: "Jesus Is the God of Muhammad!""

The paraclete predicted to come by Jesus cannot be the same thing as the holy spirit filling the people who subsequently become prophets, because of several reasons:

In Jn16:7-8 Jesus sets the condition that he has first to go away for the paraclete to come, while throughout Luke and other places such as Jn20:21-22 the Holy spirit is present during Jesus' life time and he is even already indwelling the disciples if one wants to equate paraclete with holyspirit in Jn14:17. The NIV footnotes on this particular verse show that it is in the present tense in early manuscripts which renders the verse

"But you know him for he lives with you and IS in you" and not "But you know him for he lives with you and WILL BE in you".

What gives even more credence to those present tense early manuscripts is that the beginning of the sentence itself

"But you know him for he lives with you"

in all available manuscripts is in the present tense, whether the ones that end in the future or the ones that end in the present tense.

The aim of bible editors is to promote the idea that the holyspirit was present in Jesus' lifetime but not indwelling the believers yet until Pentecost where the disciples where filled with the holy spirit, and that this is what Jesus meant when he said he will pray God to send "another" paraclete. But this verse's tense in early manuscripts clearly contradicts this notion, besides the simple fact that there was never "another" holy spirit. Further why would it be impossible for the holyspirit to come to the disciples in Jesus' presence when it is established that it can indwell a limitless number of people simultaneously?

So the disciples, per Jesus' words already know "the spirit of truth", because it is with and in them, during Jesus' lifetime. Jesus therefore did not need to go away as a precondition for that other paraclete to come, if "the spirit of truth" the holyspirit and the paraclete all refer to one and the same thing. Besides the fact that there was never "another" holyspirit, but there certainly was "another" paraclete.

The Greek "spirit" is pneuma and is neutral, without gender. According to 1Jn4 "the spirit of truth" is what distinguishes, among all the "spirits" those who accept Jesus as God's envoy

1Jn4"do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. This is how we recognize the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood".

Anyone recognizing Jesus as a human being sent by God has "the spirit of truth" in him such as Muhammad, and by extension the Muslims, as opposed to the spirit of falsehood dwelling in the world that rejects Jesus as God's human envoy. This paints trinitarians as spirits of the antichrist since they do not recognize that

"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"

but that "God has come in the flesh".

It says that God dwells, through His spirit, in those who recognize Jesus

"This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit..God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them".

The spirit of truth is therefore coming from God and filling those who recognize Jesus' true identity. This applies to any individual, past, present and future. The disciples addressed by Jesus "know" this "other" paraclete because he is like them filled with the spirit of truth

Jn14:16-17"I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete to help you and be with you forever, the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and is in you".

If by "another" paraclete Jesus meant "another" holyspirit then it would mean the disciples never knew or experienced the holyspirit. Besides the fact, again, that there never was "another" holyspirit, but there certainly was another paraclete.

The expression of being "in" eachother can easily be understood if one looks at the context of its use throughout the NT and its application for both physical and abstract subjects. Trinitarian proof texting has obscured the meaning of that expression, as it did in so many other cases. The plain meaning of Jesus, and any other entity being "in" another one simply is to share a common position. The examples are too many to cite and i can provide them upon request.

Acts17apologetics searching the true Ahmad; the prophet mentionned in the NT?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Declares: "Jesus Is the God of Muhammad!""

61:6"And when Isa son of Maryam said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic"

Ahmad in this verse is in the grammatical form of ism tafdeel. For example a sentence might say "this person is kabeer/great but that one is akbar/greater". Ism tafdeel indicates that the characteristics described are greater in the individual concerned. It is an observable reality that the prophet Muhammad's name is much more revered than that of Jesus. That characteristic reached a point that the ism tafdeel became equivalent to the prophet Muhammad's proper name. It is reported that nobody had that name prior to the prophet. Shortly after the prophet's time however, Muslims began using it as a name. Ibn Abi Ahmad for instance, who narrated ahadith from Abu Hurayra who himself died around 59AH. Or another hadith narrator who was his contemporary, named Al Jamdi Abu Ahmad. The prophet referred to himself as Ahmad, among 5 other names. His companions did too, including in poems about him. Ibn Ishaq in his sirah refers to "Ahmad" while relating the story of the prophet's birth.

 Hassan b. Thabit said: ‘I was a well-grown boy of seven or eight, understanding all that I heard, when I heard a Jew calling out at the top of his voice from the top of a fort in Yathrib “O company of Jews” until they all came together and called out “Confound you, what is the matter?” He answered: “Tonight has risen a star under which Ahmad is to be born.”

According to world renowned Islamicist professor Déroche, the earliest Quranic manuscripts contain the exact same wording as 61:6 (Catalogue des manuscrits Arabes). Arthur Jeffrey's proposition that 61:6 did not originally contain the reference to "Ahmad" is based on a marginal quote in a late 13th century book on qiraat by a certain "al-Marandi". Outside what that late source supposedly says, no evidence exists for Ubay's alleged variant reading, while every early manuscript containing the passage agrees with the Uthmanic recension. Also, just because someone claims something about Islam and is Muslim means nothing in terms of authenticity. There are many variants attested to this day that do not pass the standards and that do have at least a partial chain of transmission, contrary to this supposed variant that has none.

Muhammad, through his appellation and the praises he receives virtually every second of the day, fulfilled that prophecy in both ways, as established in the Quran

94:4"And We raised for you, your remembrance."

Further, nobody came after the prophet Jesus claiming to be a messenger of God and whose evidences were repeatedly and consistently treated as magic

46:7"Our clear lucid verses were read to them. But, referring to the truth as it came to them, the unbelievers said, “This is obviously a magic!”".

The prophecies speaking of the prophet Muhammad that were written down were not removed which is why the Quran says that the people of the book

2:146"recognize him as they recognize their sons".

The Quran does not speak of alteration but of deliberate misinterpretation of these prophecies by those who heard the Quran, because of the implications

2:146"and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it)". 

Jn14:16"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor (paraclete) to be with you forever. The spirit of truth, the world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you"

Jn15:26"When the Counselor (paraclete) 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"

Jn16:7"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor (paraclete) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you"

The Greek "paraclete" is used in the New/Greek Testament for a comforter, advocate, counselor etc.

1Jn2:1"..we have an advocate (paraclete) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

Here the paraclete is translated as "advocate". This is one of a prophet's functions, and although anyone could potentially be qualified as an advocate, the context of its use in the Greek writings is that of an envoy from God. It is applied to Jesus the human prophet, who identified himself as a prophet, and who was similarily recognized by the multitudes as a prophet Matt21:11,Mk6:3-5Lk13:32-4 who was a human being

"made like his brothers in every way"Heb2:17.

So when Jesus prays God to send "another" paraclete in Jn14, one can justifiably argue that he is asking God to send another prophet like him who will be an advocate, a counselor and comforter, all of these being the descriptions of a prophet. Like Jesus the advocate 1Jn2:1 and prophet of God Matt21:11. There was never "another" holy spirit.

More on that point later on.

Apostate prophet prefers it the hard way; complicating the sharia?

In answer to the video "All The Things That Satan Does (Ridiculous Islamic Teachings)"

Besides the twofold message that there is wisdom in having some things not known to us, that one should not ask about minutiae related to the religion which may have the opposite effect of making it obsessive compulsive, hard to follow and the potential danger of falling out of religion, the verse 5:101 also carries a timeless import in regards to one's understanding of the Quran itself.

It teaches one not to be hasty, but instead wait for the detail that will elaborate on a topic requiring further explanation. This detail, present in the book, will not cause the religion to become a burden. It will eventually appear as one progresses through the Quran with an open heart, as it is being revealed to oneself. For these reasons, the Quran is to be approached with patience 75:16, one should ponder and meditate on its verse before forming any adverse opinion.  

God's law as originally intended is meant at providing spiritual purification. It would then be contrary to that purpose for God to make it complicated. He has lightened our burdens through a simple and natural sharia

22:78"and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion".

Man, being a creature endowed with freewill, has a frail spirituality 4:28 that makes him lack resolve when a moral crisis arises. That spiritual weakness is only a natural outcome of an original, untrained spiritual state just as a newborn is physically weak. Only the appropriate training, spiritual or physical can make one overcome the challenges, abstract or concrete 70:19-35. Therefore to facilitate the attainment of that goal, the sharia has been made simple and appealing to man's nature

2:185,5:6"Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful".

Had Allah wished

2:220"He would certainly have caused you to fall into a difficulty; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Even after mentioning clear prohibitions, the Quran stresses the soulful nature of the Sharia by declaring lawful these same things whenever the circumstances make it too burdensome to abide by them 5:3. God's law is thus very close to human nature, it does not run contrary to it, rather it is the disobedience to the law of the Creator that is unnatural. Neither is a person expected to be over-zealous in his religious duties

24:53"reasonable obedience (is desired); surely Allah is aware of what you do".

Sincerity, not perfection is required and so if one stumbles during the pursuit of the right course, God is forgiving 4:17,53:32. One can therefore clearly see that this notion of the naturalness and simplicity of the divine law is not based on some whims by the Muslim scholars and jurists, but on Quranic indications which occur so frequently that they cannot be mere metaphors. It is the principle of facilitation/taysir of the sharia as stated in

2:185“God wills that you shall have ease, and does not want you to suffer hardship”.

This verse is treated as belonging to the category of muhkam/decisive or explicit verses, corroborated by many others cited above. The traditions reflect that Quranic axiom

“I was sent to people with the lenient, tolerant, True Religion”

or

“Do [good] deeds that are within your capacity”

or

“This religion is very easy and entails no hardship".

The prophet instructed Muadh as he sent him to Yemen

“Facilitate things for the people and do not make things difficult for them. Be kind and lenient [both of you] with the people, and do not be hard on them and give the people good tidings and do not reject them,”.

Based on the traditions and the Quran, the scholars have thus asserted that making things easy/taysir is one of the higher objectives of the Sharia. It aims at protecting the life, property, and dignity of the whole community without causing inappropriate hardships. Throughout the ages, despite the mindless islamophobic rant, nations have been receptive to the teachings of Islam without any difficulty or hardship.

This is evidenced by the transformation that Islam has brought about in the daily lives of the Arabs, the Persians, the Copts of Egypt, the Berbers, the Tartars, the people of India, the Chinese, and the Turks, without these peoples facing any difficulty in discarding their age-old bad habits, or being compelled to abandon their good customs.

Acts17apologetics deny Muhammad in the NT; Paraclete is sent by Jesus?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Declares: "Jesus Is the God of Muhammad!""

Per Jn14:16 the Father is the only sender of the paraclete and none else. Jesus saying he will send the paraclete in Jn15:26 depends entirely on the will of the Father. As Jesus says, the paraclete comes from the Father and goes out from the Father. Jesus will send him to the world through his prayers Jn14:16 to the Father. The sending of the paraclete depends entirely and exclusively on the Father and Jesus saying he will send him simply means that he will ask God to send him per Jn14:16. It doesnt say the paraclete will come to the people speaking in Jesus' name, but that the Father will send him in Jesus' name meaning at his request as reflected in other translations, because Jesus will pray the Father for this

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete"

Muhammad the son of Ishmael is the result of the preceding prophets' prayers like Abraham' prayers to God in the Quran to raise a prophet among his descendants settled in the area that will bring them to the straight path.

Apostate prophet has been deceived; all questioning comes from Satan?

In answer to the video "All The Things That Satan Does (Ridiculous Islamic Teachings)"

This favorite of the misinformed critics of Islam will be addressed shortly, but in introduction it would be appropriate to mention one particular story. 

The Quran relates an occasion where, due to their arrogance the religion became a burden on them. Their lack of obedience and will to bend to God's will, or "stiff-necked" as Moses and other prophets labelled them collectively in their scriptures, is demonstrated in 2:67-73. During the incident, they were offensive towards their prophet, accusing him of ridiculing them when he simply conveyed God's command. They had to sacrifice any cow in a ritual that would clarify the confusing circumstances of a murder. They went on asking Moses that he might ask "his lord" as though He was not their Lord, for more and more particulars regarding cow to be sacrificed.

After ridiculing their prophet, discrediting God's answers to their demands as unclear because

"to us the cows are all alike",

they finally reluctantly agreed to perform the ritual. The truth is that they were trying to delay it through their hairsplitting demands because they sought to hide the truth about the crime. This command to sacrifice a cow comes in the context of manslaughter as described in Deut21, with the taking of oaths over the blood of the sacrificed cow.

The Quran gives details on the first time this command was issued to the Israelites and their reaction when they actually had to put it to practice, their final acceptance of the command without any intention and conviction despite their prophet answering all their objections. When it was performed for the first time, the ritual resulted in the resurrection to life of the victim. This exposed what they were trying to hide as well as provided a living proof for the concept of bodily resurrection.

The Jews disagreed on this issue for long and for centuries until the coming of Jesus and his own miraculous evidence for the resurrection. Because of the dramatic demonstration, the ritual remained inscribed in their justice code as a means of atonement for an unsolved murder. It is interesting to note that in the time of Moses, other similar miracles were performed, such as when

Numbers21:9"Moses made a copper snake and put it on a pole, and whenever a snake bit a man, he would gaze upon the copper snake and live". 

Together with condemning them for their rebellious trend, the passage above hints at another reality. Through this Quran as was done with the sending of prophets among them, God is 2:72 mukhrijun/continuously unveiling their lies.

However their disobedient trend would continue after that, their 

2:74"hearts hardened after that, so that they were like rocks, rather worse in hardness; and surely there are some rocks from which streams burst forth, and surely there are some of them which split asunder so water issues out of them, and surely there are some of them which fall down for fear of Allah". 

The verse eloquently increases the effect of its simile on the audience. It first gives a recognizable, observable point of reference that is already strong in itself, a dry rock. It then carries its audience's imagination further by alluding to abstract imageries that are stronger in intensity. This gradual rhetorical device achieves a stronger impact on the minds than immediately jumping to the most intense simile. This simile was relevant to the historical context of the Israelites. When they needed water they had seen it gush forth from one solid rock. They had seen how a mountain crashed down, humbled by Allah's glory 7:143. But their hearts, devoid of faith and fear of God remained rigid despite the intensity of miracles and divine favors they witnessed.

Their hard heartedness is a recurrent theme and accusation in their own Books Ezek3:7,Jer5:3etc.
This attitude of obscuring a simple religious directive is not restricted to this particular ordinance. They have done the same in other circumstances and for different reasons, and so God gave them free rein in forging their own laws. This resulted in them following their base desires and idolatrous tendencies

Ezek20:25-26: “Moreover, I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live. When they passed every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts — that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord”.

There is a reason why the Torah we have today includes a list of 613 codes for the Israelites to live by. God from the onset as He established a covenant with this "stiff necked" nation, had to check their heavy propensity for deviation. This was done through a set of laws meant at controlling them, keeping them on the straight path. Their rebellious nature however quickly took the upper hand, as it did even while Moses was among them performing miracles for all to see. Instead of humbling their selves, gratefully abiding by these directives as David did Ps19, they progressively took control of the laws, making their application only secondary to the man made practices that "validate them". Their ritual obsessions and hairsplitting conjectures basically turned the Divine law into a man made one. Divine law should instead be agreeable to the human soul, and if its recipient are mature and obedient, which was overwhelmingly not the case of the Israelites in their history, then it should make room for the evolving circumstances of the world. This adaptability however can never compromise the original spiritual principle and intent. This nature and purpose of the Mosaic law was rightly observed since the earliest days of Judeo-christian internal debates. In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr cites every aspect of the law, including the institution of sacrifice and observance of Sabbath, as burdens forced upon the Jews to contain their tendency to disobedience

"Wherefore, God, adapting His laws to that weak people, ordered you to offer sacrifices to His name, in order to save you from idolatry, but you did not obey even then, for you did not hesitate to sacrifice your children to the demons. Moreover, the observance of the sabbaths was imposed upon you by God so that you would be forced to remember Him, as He Himself said, ‘That you may know that I am God your Savior’ [Ezk 20.20]".

The Mosaic law in most part did not originate at Sinai but progressively came on the Israelites to contain their repeated disobedience and punish their endless conjectures on clear instructions. Many were then retrospectively painted as revealed to Moses since the beginning, and for different reasons. The Sabbath became a day of rest that mimics God's resting from creation Gen2,Ex20,31. Another passage gives a profoundly different reason for Sabbath. It is a remembrance of Egyptian bondage Deut5. This shows the confused manner in which tradition was transmitted prior to being written down.

In addition to the above example of divine stiffening of the law as a punishment, their scholars reached sometimes ridiculous heights of hairsplitting conjectures, which they obtained through subjective methods of deduction and then put forward as God's ordinances. Put briefly, the creators of the Oral Torah (the sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud) completely ignored the laws of the (Written) Torah, only using them as a convenient framework within which to legislate laws adapted to their own time. These ideas are expressed in the Talmud/Oral Torah, considered as God-given and revealed as the written Torah of Moses is.

Their known soulless interpretations and conjectures caused them to create insurmountable legal criteria.

For example some purity rituals must be fullfilled before or just at the start of the Messianic era, but the preconditions are impossible to achieve due to the supposed impurity of the entire community. There is also the sacrifice of a "red heifer" whom none has been able to breed and raise yet, despite the continuous attempts up to this day. It is said that even Solomon, the wisest of all men, tried throughout his life to understand the matter of the red heifer and did not succeed.

The religion of Allah is not a burden, and neither is the set of ethical discipline it imposes upon man meant at narrowing down his feel of life 20:2, it rather is meant at enhancing it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong. It is a blessing meant at purifying mankind or as the Quran says when speaking of the objective of religion being for spiritual tazkiya/purging. Allah calls it His favor and grace

4:113,5:3,2:231"and remember the favor of Allah upon you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book and the Wisdom".

Here, this favor is described as being in the Book and the Wisdom referring to the body and soul of the Sharia respectively, to its commandments and their philosophy. This phrase is often used to connote the fact that God's guidance is perfectly balanced between both these aspects.

Allah has not ordained a soulless sharia concerned only with the body of deeds. The Quran constantly parallels internal with external purity and warns Muslims not to fall into the error of those before them, namely the Jews, who neglected the spirit of the Sharia for soulless external rituals and exaggerated legal hair-splittings, superstitious restrictions and regulations.

The prophet Muhammad actually came as a mercy to them and to relieve them from these shackles 7:157.

Allah has restored the Sharia to its original simplicity in order to lighten our burdens 2:286,4:27-8 because

"man is created weak".

This means man's weakness is due to the fact that he cannot by himself find the true path, he is in need of Allah's guidance. That is why the preceding verses speak of Allah's will to guide mankind, turn to us mercifully and lighten our burdens. 2:286 also implies that Allah could burden mankind with a difficult Sharia as a form of punishment as was done with the Israelites and as plainly stated in the book of Ezekiel quoted above. When we create an innovation and complicate the Sharia on ourselves, then we will charge ourselves with greater burdens than God asked of us. God allows this to happen as a form of punishment.

What Allah demands from us is not unreachable and He does not impose what is beyond our power and understanding. This is why Allah expects us to answer the call of religion with

2:285"We hear and obey".

It is an unconditional declaration of faith and obedience to a system which is not meant, as already said, at narrowing down man's feel of life through ethical discipline and other teachings of the Quran but on the contrary, to enhance it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong 20:2.

With the above issues in mind, one can appreciate why the Quran tells the audience not to insist on investigating the unimportant things or minute details of a story. It diverts not only oneself but also others from the moral and spiritual import of the narration 18:22. Similarly the Quran warns the Muslims not to ask questions about the things regarding which the Sharia is purposely silent 5:101 because such questions call for answers that tighten the limits of a directive, and then people are not able to follow them and as a result invite the wrath of God, as what happened directly and indirectly with the Israelites. God wants that a directive be followed the way it is given. Difficulties should not be created by asking to explain what is concise and by asking to limit and restrict what is absolute and in fact

5:102"A people before you indeed asked such questions, and then became disbelievers on account of them"  

2:108"Would you then ask your Prophet such questions as were asked of Moses in former times? and whoever adopts unbelief instead of faith, he indeed has lost the right direction of the way".

The simplification of the Sharia/Law leaves room for human common sense and judgement, allowing different nations and communities to frame laws for themselves to meet new and changed situations. The Quran has laid down a handful of laws as explicit, while most provide a foundation and philosophical framework by which things can be negotiated, as long as it is in accordance with the principles of morality and wisdom laid down in the Book. The Prophet is reported to have said:

“The most sinful person among the Muslims is the one who asked about something which had not been prohibited, but was prohibited because of his asking”.

He further said

“God has set boundaries, so do not transgress them; He kept silent on certain things out of mercy for you rather than forgetfulness, do not ask about them”.

As is clear, the Quran doesnt prevent the honest debate and search of knowledge. Many Quranic verses begin with questions that are stated very compactly and their real purport becomes evident through their answer

2:189"They ask you concerning..".

The verse 5:101 rather warns against questioning that could lead to unnecessary complications in religious laws. In addition, and as demonstrated through the Israelites' example, such questioning also stems for shallow belief and hypocrisy. Asking questions, politely humbly with pure intent is never disallowed. The angels were permitted to voice questions to God directly 2:30. No religion says, almost at the end of every argument for its truth, to reflect, ponder, think for themselves. It invites sceptics to bring forth any constructive criticism and argument. As just stated, the epitome of that principle is the angels' questioning God's plan for creation, questioning God Himself and yet they arent condemned at anytime. Justified curiosity is not wrong but even encouraged

21:7,16:43"ask those who possess knowledge if you do not know”.

In 58:1 a reference is made to an incident in which a pious woman had to face a severe difficulty regarding a religious issue; instead of becoming frustrated and showing distrust in God, she presented her case before Him and His Prophet with purity of intentions. Her difficulty was resolved and her case set forth as an example in the Quran: that of a person who adopted the correct attitude when troubles came her way.