Islam critiqued is a closet philosopher; good and bad only an illusion?

In answer to the video "No Compulsion in Religion"

What we view, from our limited understanding of the intricacies involved in sustaining life on this earth, let alone the maintaining of the universe, as "natural disasters" are not due to God's wrath, sent as punishments.

Only when these events come as prophecied by certain individuals, can they be considered as such. According to the Quran, God’s chastisement befell only nations who rejected the prophets and messengers sent to them and further it befell only the opponents of the prophet without harming the believers

17:15"nor do We chastise until We raise a messenger"  

11:94"And when Our decree came to pass We delivered Shu'aib, and those who believed with him by mercy from Us, and the rumbling overtook those who were unjust so they became motionless bodies in their abodes".

As regards people that die in natural disasters unrelated to divine prophecies, one should remember that life does not end with death in this world. It goes on eternally in the hereafter where each person is requited for the time alloted to him in this world. Only those devoid of a higher outlook on life remained shackled by what they refer to as the problem of evil and death. There are thus different kinds of sufferings. Some are analogous to the process of forging metal, raising the person to a higher state of consciousness 

"The Prophet said, "No fatigue, nor disease, nor sorrow, nor sadness, nor hurt, nor distress befalls a Muslim, even if it were the prick he receives from a thorn, but that Allah expiates some of his sins for that". 

To further illustrate, the prophet stated 

"The example of a believer is that of a fresh tender plant; from whatever direction the wind comes, it bends it, but when the wind becomes quiet, it becomes straight again. Similarly, a believer is afflicted with calamities (but he remains patient till Allah removes his difficulties.) And an impious wicked person is like a pine tree which keeps hard and straight till Allah cuts (breaks) it down when He wishes".

Other types of worldly sufferings are non-redemptive to the individual involved, not allowing the opportunity to rise, like a starving or sick child, or a person that is murdered or that dies in a natural disaster. These types of suffering tear appart human consciousness. A feeling of injustice ensues and remains. The only solace is in the thought that the world is passing, that it has a higher purpose, leading to a place infinitely greater in comparison, and where every single matter is evened out. That is why the Quran appeals to that inner mechanism of human consciousness as evidence of a Creator. One has the inexplicable urge to make sense of a matter that can never be empirically tested 75:1-15,91:8. That is why even atheists feel unease at the sight of evil and injustice. Yet ironically, atheists have no grounds to claim there is evil and injustice in the absolute sense, given that these things are subjective from a naturalistic viewpoint. The staunchest atheist however cannot ignore the screams of his fitra, one of the most fundamental evidences per the Quran for Allah and the Hereafter. The fitra is triggered by evil and injustice just as the physical nervous system is triggered by pain. Physical pain signals the need to take action so as to resolve a condition. One does so through refraining from a behavior, or finding the appropriate cure that either reduces or takes away the pain. Sure, not all bodily afflictions can be resolved. But the nervous system exists so as to signal the necessity to end the pain. In the same way, spiritual pain caused by evil and injustice indicates that one should take certain steps so as to ease or solve the condition. These are outlined in the religion, and include; helping oneanother and enjoining justice as much as is individually possible, as well as of course, belief in God's wisdom which shall reveal itself in the hereafter where all matters are evened out. A believer has faith that all of God's attributes manifest to perfection, and if that manifestation isnt obvious in this world, it certainly will be in the hereafter. There thus cannot be a "problem of evil" to be postulated against a believer, only one who rejects the notion of ultimate justice lives in perpetual confusion, trying to make sense of life's events 

34:8"they who do not believe in the Hereafter are in torment and extreme error". 

The suffering of a child is a means by which another is tested. It can be the parents or anyone with the power to ease that suffering. Its also clear that the weak (starving child) is not being tested. This then results in a worldly injustice from the child's viewpoint. Because if suffering is a means of spiritual betterment, and that a 2 year old child is not spiritually accountable, then he does not benefit from suffering. Whether he dies in a state of ease or hardship, he still receives paradise. God, as stated earlier, sometimes allows this type of injustice, which can be directly (mistreatment, war etc) or indirectly (illness) brought on the child. This injustice in itself becomes one of the most compelling evidence for God, per the Quran where Allah swears by this very inner mechanism that causes us to question injustice when we see it, and to desire justice 

"I swear by the Day of Resurrection, And I swear by the reproaching soul [to the certainty of resurrection]". 

The only thing that solves injustice, is its opposite, justice. And if the balance can never be achieved in this world, as is obvious from countless cases besides a suffering child, and that our very nature needs justice to be appeased just like our lungs need oxygen, then it means there must be a world where that natural need is satisfied. No other system answers that need than the afterlife where judgement is perfect.

The notion of evil coming from the creatures is subtely alluded to with the jinn's astonishment at the drastic changes in the unseen realities of the heaven and earth, when the revelation of the Quran began. They did not know what would the consequences be

72:10"we know not whether evil is intended for the inhabitants of the earth or whether their Lord wills to Guide them".

Guidance is herein ascribed to God, but evil, used in passive voice, is not attributed to Him. Corruption comes from people themselves when they misuse their potential. God's will, of establishing a system of causality resulting in good or evil, does not mean He approves of the latter or that it is beyond His power to prevent or allow it. He may interrupt the process at anytime, or force the process in a way or another. God may either allow or prevent the evil consequences of human freewill, according to his wisdom

4:78"and if a benefit comes to them, they say: This is from Allah; and if evil befalls them, they say: This is from you. Say: All is from Allah".

There is wisdom in allowing apparent evil, because not everything that man regards as "evil fortune" is really evil

2:216"it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know".

What is often regarded as evil or misfortune, as in the case in 4:78, is a situation resulting from one's own life choices

42:30"And whatever affliction befalls you, it is on account of what your hands have wrought".

God has allowed this situation to occur in order to make it a trial, which is in Quranic terminology nothing but a means of spiritual betterment. It is therefore not really an "evil" from a higher perspective

11:9-10"And if We make man taste mercy from Us, then take it off from him, most surely he is despairing, ungrateful. And if We make him taste a favor after distress has afflicted him, he will certainly say: The evils are gone away from me. Most surely he is exulting, boasting".

Among the places where that notion, that evil is many times only a matter of perspective, is in 22:11. In that verse, the opposite to the "good" things of life are called "trials", not evil.

Islam critiqued tackles serious issues; Who creates Evil?

In answer to the video "No Compulsion in Religion"

All creation is due to the only will of Allah 39:62,113:2 and all things were created

32:7"good",

ie in proper proportion and adapted for their particular determined 20:50,59:1,80:19,87:2-3 and measured 15:21,25:2 functions. But besides the Lord of creation, every single thing is flawed and hence potentially harmful, whether willingly or not, purposefully or not, hence we seek protection from the possible harm that could come from any of God's creatures, not from God Himself.

The Bible on the other hand, unequivocally states, that God is the creator of evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14. Christianity has this evil God creating man with a sinful nature, making him primarily lean towards sin.

Thus, logically, and as reiterated in the Quran, evil, in the negative, sinful and harmful sense isnt directly God's creation. The creation of creatures has been attributed to Allah and of evil to the creatures themselves

113:1-2"Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the falaq/the entity that breaks forth/the creation (ie all of creation comes to existence through that process), From the evil of what He has created".

This shows that Allah has not created any creature for the sake of evil, but sometimes evil, or the way we might perceive it, does appear from them. As to the entities posessing freewill, evil results from them when they misuse the power of freewill granted to them

64:2"He it is Who created you, but one of you is an unbeliever and another of you is a believer; and Allah sees what you do".

The purpose of creation as illustrated in the Quran with God's exchange with the angels when he was about to create the first human vicegerent, answers the reason for God "allowing" evil, disbelief, sin to occur sometimes. For the great reward to be achieved, there must be freedom of choice, which also carries the possibility for deviation. When such deviation translates into evil, transgression or crime, God could bring down His judgement immidiately but He has allowed a time of respite during which even the worst sinner can come back to his senses, reform hismelf and grow spiritualy.

The Quran therefore answers the age old question of suffering in the clearest of ways, integrating it as part of God's design since the beginning. It isnt a shackle nor a sign of divine disapproval and punishment. Human suffering plays an essential role in our spiritual and moral development, and in our journey towards God

2:155-6“And We will surely test you with some degree of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and provisions, but give glad-tidings to those who persevere. Those who, when disaster strikes them, say, “Indeed we belong to God, and indeed to Him we will return.”

This system of causality is directly linked to the freewill humanity has been endowed with. It is a system bound to result in the creation of evil and suffering sometimes. That suffering then becomes the very means by which humanity is spiritually and morally stimulated to grow nearer to God, develop a relationship with Him

84:6"O Human, indeed you are labouring painfully towards your Lord, but you shall surely meet Him".

This painful toil on the path of God manifests the most when one has to show the ability to be merciful to God's creation

90:14-17"Verily, We have created the human being in a state of constant toil and hardship. Does he think that no one has power over him? He says, ‘I have squandered much wealth and riches!’ But does he think that no one sees him? Have We not made for him two eyes? And a tongue and two lips? And shown him the two paths? But he attempts not the uphill climb. And what would enable you to comprehend the uphill climb? It is the freeing of a slave. Or feeding on a day of severe hunger the close orphan or the needy person lying in the dust. Then he will become one of those with faith, who urge one another to have patience and urge one another to show compassion and mercy".

So our spiritual ascent towards God involves a moral struggle to alleviate the suffering of others. The universe is based on natural laws that are all good. Man, the vicegerent placed on Earth above all creatures, can through his freewill either use these laws to do good or bad. Man has been given the power of speech 55:4. He can use it to spread the truth or falsehood. In the intricate account of creation, the angels had perceived this evil potential

"Will you place in it one who would spread corruption in it and shed blood while we proclaim Your praise and sanctify You?".

They did not consider the extent of mankind's positive potential, which God proceeded to demonstrate.

Acts17apologetics confirm Jesus' prophecies; destruction of the Jewish rejecters?

In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"

Physical destruction and abasement came on Jesus' rejecters soon after his departure. In the years 69-73, the Temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground as Jesus predicted in Matt23,24,Mk13,Lk23 (Quran 17:7,3:56), their priesthood was destroyed, the Israelites were slaughtered in large numbers women and children included, by the Romans.

Many more were enslaved and sold in the markets, as Jesus prophesied lk21:24, deported throughout the Roman empire and colonies for hard labor. Some were boarded on prison ships and sent to Corinth for the digging of an isthmus. Soonafter in the years 114-135 they suffered further destruction and enslavement by the tens of thousands, impovrishment and scattering throughout the earth.

The greatest abasement was that for the next 1900 years they would have no authority in this land that was divinely granted to them. Following Jesus, Judea would be wrecked and destroyed several times by pagan forces, in accordance with Jesus' prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another, for the Israelites' rejection of him Luke21.

The predictions as reported in the NT however seem to be retrospectively written. The Temple was destroyed in 70CE. The Gospels were written after that time. If the Prophecy of the Temple's destruction was made by Jesus in the 30s as is suggested in the Gospels, then one needs to explain why earlier NT books seem uninformed of it. We're not talking about the tearing down of a place of worship in some remote location, but of Jerusalem's Temple, known throughout the empire and beyond, a place of particular significance to the authors' own religion. Yet the book of Hebrews, written in the 60s describes it as a reality which is in competition with the nascent Jesus sect because it epitomises rabbinic Judaism.

Previous prophecies, in their own books warned them that should they turn away from the commands of God, as was the case with their rejection of Jesus, God Himself will uproot them from the land they were settled in. They were not settled in it to enjoy it as an unrestricted holiday resort but to assert therein true faith and righteousness. Failure to do so would instead turn their sacred shrine into an object of ridicule among the nations 2Chronicles7:19-22. Eusebius the early church father notes that "stones from the Temple itself, and from its ancient sanctuary and holy place, were used for the building of idol temples, and of theatres for the populace". The Romans, led by Hadrian sought to build upon its ruins their new city "Aelia Capitolina".

To achieve that vast project, the erasure of the previous city of the Jews had to be complete. In the process, their oppression was so intense, their expulsion so effective following their repeated rebellions and the 3 years of vicious warfare led by their messiah Simon bar Kochba, that by the 4th century the exact location of the temple edifice was beyond recall

"Rabbi Yermiah, son of Babylonia came to the Land of Israel and could not find the site of the Temple" (Tractate Shevuot 1 4b).

If 4th century Christian historian Eusebius is to be believed, the new city that Emperor Hadrian built upon the ruins of Jerusalem was colonized by a "new race of Gentiles" after "a total destruction of its ancient inhabitants". The whole province of Judea was even renamed Philisti as a further humiliation, after the ancient inhabitants of the land and bitterest enemies of the Israelites, the Philistines.

The new laws forbid Jews to live in the city or anywhere between Jerusalem and Hebron. Capital punishment faced any Jew who so much as stepped foot in the city. The harshness went so far as imposing penalties on any Jews caught laying eyes on the city on their "day of mourning". A day of mourning is one where they would remember the calamities that befell them. In Josephus' words

"Jerusalem ..was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited".

The scarcity of achaeological evidences for the biblical stories attests to this.

As 4th century churchman Jerome tells us, a statue of Hadrian, seated on horseback, was erected on the levelled platform of Jerusalem's Temple Mount after the crushing of the bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD. The Roman Emperor despised the Jews for their insularity and arrogant claims for a single concept of the divine. Just as Hadrian had erected a Temple to Zeus on the top of Mt Gerizim close to which the Samaritan Temple stood, it isnt inconceivable that he had erected a similar temple in Jerusalem, more precisely a temple dedicated to Jupiter, next to his imperial statue, as some scholars suggest. It was not until the Christianization of the Roman empire late in the 4th century that these pagan "abominations" were eventually torn down. Stones from the ruined sanctuary were looted for use in later Christian structures. On the neglected esplanade the Byzantine emperor Justinian built a church to Mary Mother of God but little else.

When Jerusalem became Christianity's holy city, the Christian authorities would allow entry to some exiled Jews once a year to mourn the destruction of their Temple. One cannot but notice the cynicism of the Christians who viewed in the desecrated ruins, the triumph of their religion, the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy and thus satisfactorily left it as it is. In the Quran, besides them being subdued up to this day to the Christians, God warns them of further chastisement 17:8 whenever they return or persist in their wrong ways. Their known long and painful history in Christian lands bears testimony to this. The Quran further condemned them to have their security fully in the hands of others

3:112"Abasement is made to cleave to them wherever they are found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men".

It isnt God Himself who would repel their numerous enemies and Who would give them the upper hand on more powerful foes as he did in the times of Moses. Such security could either come from some Muslim states (of the past and today) in the name of Allah or from some non-Muslim states for other reasons. This is because

3:112"they have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits".

Here the Quran plays on the concept of shade, the comfort provided by the pillars of clouds during their lengthy exodus, telling them they are now under the shadow of humiliation and oppression instead of the shadow of peace, comfort, protection, sustenance. 

In its usual pattern of drawing a line and not generalizing, the Noble Quran continues

3:113"They are not all alike; of the followers of the Book there is an upright party.."

Their own books speak of their cursed state, made to hang upon them, and destined to expire only at what they call "the end of days", which in their terminology refers to the Messianic era of bliss and utopia

Zech8:13"And it shall come to pass that [just] as you were a curse among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you-and you shall be a blessing. Fear not; may your hands be strengthened".

By the year 638, Muslim troops led by the Caliph Umar entered Jerusalem and as they cleared the garbage on the Temple mount and uncovered scattered jumble of architectural elements, they identified the ruins as those of Solomon's Temple, instead of Hadrian's, and decided to clear an area of around 35 acres. It was covered in garbage and debris of all sorts that were cynically left to be accumulated by the Christians as a reminder of Jesus' vindication, then a small prayer house was built on the site. The whole area of the mount that was cleared is what is known today as Masjid Al-Aqsa, sometimes also referred to as Haram Al-Sharif. Umar also uncovered what is suspected to be the Foundation Stone; the Rock from where it is speculated the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven on the Night Journey 17:1, and which is believed by the Jews to be the first part of the Earth to come into existence and from where Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah offered sacrifices to God. Umar, contrary to the islamophobic rant, did not steal temple mount, he restored this area that was abandoned by both Jews and Christians, to its purpose, dignifying and honoring it.

It would be interesting to mention here the passage of Genesis 49. The writer promises that rulership over Israel will stay in the house of Judah and that the law will remain studied and kept. Historically neither were fulfilled. Then it mentions shiloh and how nations will gather around that figure, followed by metaphors of abundance. This isnt the concept of an end times figure that shall reestablish Jewish glory and law. As assumed earlier by the author, both are supposed to remain uninterrupted, up to the point of the arrival of "shiloh". Christians claim Jesus is this shiloh.

But assuming Jesus is traced to Judah, despite it being a violation of Jewish law due to him not having a biological father, how can he be the shiloh when it says the scepter shall not depart from Judah UNTIL shiloh comes? It implies that kingship rights will be removed from Judah at some future point and then given to shiloh (which etymologically means "the one to whom it belongs"). For Jesus to be shiloh in that sentence, he needs to be from other than Judah, which doesnt fit the Christian position. Further, neither shiloh nor Jesus appeared when Jewish self-government was over with the capture of the last king from the tribe of Judah, Zedekiah, in about 586 B.C.E. And even when Jesus did appear, he did not do so as a ruler over the Jews. To preserve the integrity of their text, the rabbis are now forced to reinterpret the promise and project it to the long haul, as Christians do with Jesus' second coming as ruler. To the rabbis, "the scepter not departing from Judah" became an allusion to right of governance instead of actual rulership and "the one to whom it belongs" (shiloh) a future ruler who shall establish it. Yet this still doesn't solve the problem of the removal of Judah when shiloh appears. The solution for them is elsewhere. Up to the arrival of the Ishmaelite prophet and the establishment of the Muslim nation as the new torch bearers of the truth to the world, the Jews could have potentially returned to their former glory, provided they repented and returned to the straight path; abiding by their covenant and accepting the last messenger sent to them, Jesus. When shiloh "the one to whom it belongs" appeared, that door was shut and will remain so until the day of resurrection 

Ps132:12"If your sons keep My covenant, and this, My testimony, which I shall teach them, also their sons will sit on your throne forever".

The current state of Israel is illegitimate, ethically, legally, let alone scripturally. That is why it is a deeply fractured, majoritarly secular society and that despite the apparent independence, is actually living under humiliating subjugation to other nations on whose support its survival depends, as the Quran even tells them (as referenced earlier).

The Jews, until now and as corroborated by their rabbis and their books, have still not been given the divine authority to rebuild their destroyed temple on its previous location, in order to re-dedicate it to their religious rituals. Per the Torah it is God that must give them the right to do so, when a Jewish king and prophet is among them, to indicate the now lost original dimensions, the location of the altar, let alone get the Jews out of several insurmountable ritualistic difficulties such as sacrificing a red heifer, complicated purity requirements, identifying the priests, the specificities of their clothings. Jews cannot just decide to go and build the temple arbitrarily. So they're waiting, and will keep on waiting, for their promised messiah to come and do the job. In the meantime, another nation has been raised in their stead as the torch bearers of the truth among the nations, with its own divinely restored Temple and its altar.

Some 50 years later, the Caliph Abdul Malik ibn Marwan constructed within this area of masjid al aqsa, the Dome of the Rock (with the golden roof) or Masjid As-Sakhrah, covering the Foundation Stone much to the Jews' dismay who find it difficult to believe that non-Jews could effectively build a place of worship on the spot of the "Holy of Holies". So they attempt to find other possible locations to the historic foundation stone (Even haShetiya).

Acts17apologetics read Quran; verse 61:14 confirms Paul?

In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"

After Jesus' salvation from his enemies, the Quran outlined the punishment to his rejectors, in line with the sunna of Allah on the destruction of the rejectors of His messengers sent with clear signs. A similar hypothetical scenario is given in 43:41 where the prophet is told that should he be taken away or even eventually martyred as happenned to previous prophets 36:26-32 the divine law of retribution against a rejecting nation will still be applied, however Allah has desired otherwise with the prophet Muhammad

43:42"We will certainly show you that which We have promised them; for surely We are the possessors of full power over them".

Among the punishements the Israelites had to face in this very world 3:56, they were subdued to the followers of Jesus until the Day of Resurrection

61:14,3:55"and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection".

Allah is addressing Jesus and is speaking of the dominion of those who follow him over his enemies. It isnt speaking in terms of proselytising success, as is alluded to in Acts with Jesus posthumously telling his missionaries they will have the power to disseminate Christianity in all corners of the world. The early gentile converts from around the region had no enmity towards Jesus nor his followers. The verse is speaking in terms of dominion of one group above another, through subduing them, not assimilation

"So a party of the children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against their enemy, and they became uppermost".

This dominance is granted to all those who claim to be his followers, whether they are from those who call themselves Christians, or from those ascribing to the beliefs of the earlier sects that believed in Jesus. The common denominator between all of them being, believing in Jesus and in Allah. Besides prevailing in a wordly sense, the followers of Jesus have also been granted spiritual victory. His teachings, despite the very few original adherents to them, regardless of the amount of falsehood that later were grafted unto them, were successfully disseminated, against the will of Jesus' enemies, whether contemporaries to him or those that still hate him today. This favor of God is a obvious reality of our times.

The Israelites are condemned to the humiliating reality of being entirely dependant on Christian whims for their survival, reluctantly accepting "bribe" money and deceitful "love" from the followers of the one they bitterly rejected. All this for the sake of maintaining a state that is the shadow of what was once God's conditional favor upon them. Today, the evangelical zionist movement that finds its inspiration in Paul deceptive missionary methods, masks its real intentions towards the Jewish people by corrupting their audience with money. Probably no nation needs this money more than Israel for its survival, exactly as God prophecised when He stated in the Quran that the Israelites, those who were Jesus' enemies, will be under the Christians' dominion until the Resurrection. This bribe money serves the purpose of gathering Jews from all over the world so that a massive slaughter begins. Christian eschatology reveals the anti semitism of its gentile Greek writers to the fullest. Towards the end of days, 2/3 of Israel will be destroyed and damned for rejecting the man/god of the trinity. Their Armageddon theology is detailed in the book of Revelation -a Book not even considered God inspired until very late in Church history-.

Those damned Jews, the Jews of the "flesh", labelled as such because of lacking spirituality and rejecting Jesus Rom2:28-9, those sons of Satan Jn8:44, worshipping in their satanic synagogues Rev2:9 will be made to bow down at the feet of the true Jews, meaning the Christians Rev3:9. This way Jesus’ beloved church is vindicated. After that humiliation they will be sent for eternal damnation.

It is these kinds of satanic association that helped produce a portrait for faithful Christians throughout the centuries of the “evil” Jew representing satan on earth. By persecuting those satanic Jews, the church and its faithful followers were in a way hastening the day when Jesus would fulfill his promise to

“make them [the synagogue of Satan] come and bow down at your feet”.

What is ironic is that the contrary is depicted in the HB, with the non-Jews, including Christians, coming at the Jews' feet. Although the messianic prophecies in the HB agree that there will be mass slaughter of those that do not believe in the Jewish God, this war shall occur prior to the messiah's arrival and universal recognition Isa59:19-20. None will be required to "believe" in the Jewish messiah because his universal rule will be an undeniable fact. An utopic era will be ushered, where only one truth reigns supreme, that of the Hebrew Bible. Every other belief system will be abolished and erased, its people destroyed, by natural calamity or others means like God's jealous and furious fire of destruction. God is often likened in the HB as a smith selecting through fire the trash from the precious metal, concretely resulting in "purifying" the people's hearts and lips. Once purified, all those surviving non-Jews will prostrate to the One true God

Zeph3:8-9,Zech14:9-17"And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one". 

Some modern apologists have attempted to negate that idea of universal forceful conversion using Micah4:5. It is ironic that this same verse is used in rabbinic comentaries to prove the opposite. The context itself speaks of the streaming of nations into Jerusalem to learn Judaism, God's judgement of nations afar, in a time where "all peoples shall go, each one in the name of his god, but we will go in the name of the Lord, our God, forever and ever". The non-Jews "going" to their false gods implies "going for destruction" in contrast to the Jews who will go on "forever". This will usher a time not only of religious monopoly but of forcible, physical subjugation of all non-Jewish peoples, made to crawl like abject creatures to the Jews' feet, in fear of

Micah7:17"our God",

transfering in addition all their riches to their new masters

Isa66:12"like a flooding stream",

or be destroyed

Zech14,Isa45:22"Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other"  

Isa49:23"And kings shall be your nursing fathers and their princesses your wet nurses; they shall prostrate themselves to you with their face on the ground, and they shall lick the dust of your feet, and you shall know that I am the Lord, for those who wait for Me shall not be ashamed"  

Isa60:"..And foreigners shall build your walls, and their kings shall serve you..For the nation and the kingdom that shall not serve you shall perish, and the nations shall be destroyed...And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and those who despised you shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet..".

The end of the book of Isaiah is repleat with such references of "glad-tidings" to the Jews towards the end of times, the messianic era, a time where Isa66:23"all flesh shall come to prostrate themselves before Me" and where the remaining lucky survivors will see all around them

"the corpses of the people who rebelled against Me, for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring for all flesh".

This represents, according to Zech13:8-9 roughly 2/3 of the world population, exterminated, with 1/3 remaining for having converted to Judaism. Following their subjugation and destruction, the wicked will be sentenced to gehinnom (see Rashi on Ps6:11).

But God's favoring of the current Christians above the disbelieving Jews does not mean they are absolved of their deviations in faith. It is for this reason that the very next verse addresses those same favored Christians, telling them

3:57"And as to those who believe and do good deeds, He will pay them fully their rewards; and Allah does not love the unjust".

It firstly clarifies that correct belief, joined with good deeds, are the only means for salvation in the hereafter. It seperates between

"those who follow you"

and

"those who believe and do good deeds",

emphasizing that among Jesus' followers from his contemporaries to present-day christians, Allah will pay fully their reward only to those of them who hold the correct belief and do good deeds. The unusual ending of this type of verse with

"Allah does not love the unjust"

is clearly directed at those followers of Jesus who strayed from the correct belief of their ancestors

5:77"O followers of the Book, be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path".

Verses with promises of mercy and paradise usually end with Divine Names of mercy and forgiveness, or on praises of those addressed in the verse but in this case it ends with a stern warning to the followers of Jesus who have deviated, they are being unjust to their own souls.

Acts17apologetics need a miracle; Can false prophets perform miracles?

In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"

The HB in Deut13 warns the people to be very suspicious of anyone with the ability to perform what may seem as unexplainable supernatural deeds. The NT similarly says false prophets may be allowed the performance of miracles as a matter of test to the believers Matt24:4-5,23-25,2Thess2:9-10. John the Baptist was a true prophet but performed no supernatural miracles Jn10:41,Matt21:25-26.

Besides, to base one's faith on the sight of "miracles" is very dangerous for one never really knows whether the "miracle" was in fact an illusion or other clever trick. The prophet Moses' opponents reflected that reality when they described his miracles as illusion without external reality

7:132"And they said; whatever sign you bring us to bewitch us, we are not going to believe you".

As the HB says, God may even purposefully allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test to the people, whether their hearts and minds will be dazzled and swayed into ungodly ways or remain steadfast in their faith. In Ex7:11 Pharaoh commands his court magicians to imitate with their magic Moses' miracles, and some of these miracles were in fact successfully replicated, showing that seemingly supernatural occurrences do not necessarily come from God. Miracles therefore, whether in the Quran or the HB, do not serve the function of attesting to an individual claim to prophethood, rather have the twofold purpose of comforting an already believing heart as well as demonstrate the tremendous responsibilities of those that witness it. 

The Bible doesnt even give instructions on how to recognize demonic miracles because technically, they are no different than the divine ones. But it shows how to recognize if the author is a false messenger. The djinn, as described in the story of the prophet Solomon, are capable of what is deemed supernatural bending of the expected laws of nature. But what they have no access to, except as Allah deems fit, is knowledge of the unseen, information that could only be obtained through revelation. Knowledge of the unseen, and of information that could not have been accessible to the messenger, prophecies coming true, uprightness of character are all very strong indications of a person's claims of prophethood. That is why the Quran, although it never denies that its messenger could and did perform miracles, treats this aspect of prophethood as inconsequential in determining the veracity of the claim, dismissing the requests of the doubters and disbelievers and leaving the matter to the Creator. The sending of signs is at all times depending in His will and wisdom. The Quran therefore, in its arguments, brings repeated attention the aforementioned 4 aspects of prophethood, with an additional focus on knowledge; based on what authority, and knowledge do the disbelievers among the polytheists and people of the book persist in their denial and deviations 

46:4"Say, [O Muhammad], "Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful."

In conclusion, messengership does not necessitate that the forces of nature be bent at will and upon request. Miracles are entirely dependent on God's will and the prophets are nothing but mere mortals tasked with transmitting a message of warnings and glad tidings

17:90-3"And they say, we will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth..or you should cause the heavens to come down...or bring Allah and the angels face to face...or you should have a house of gold...Say; Glory be to God, am I aught but a mortal messenger?"

Any type of communication with God is a prophetic experience, it doesnt have to be an information from the future but since only God knows the future, we attach that connotation to the word "prophecy". If a prophet did tell of what would happen in the future such a statement was given either as a promise or a warning. A true prophet's promises always comes to pass but his warnings may or may not happen, such as in the case of the prophet Jonas/Yunus after the repentance of his addressees. This is what Jeremiah explained when he stated in the HB that a prophet should be tested on the basis of his positive prophecies Jer28.

Acts17apologetics find a Jew in disguise: Jesus follows the Law?

In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"

But how about Jesus, what did he think of the law of Moses.

Through a concise statement, the Quran explains the mutual relationship between the Torah and the Gospel; they complete one another by centering the attention on the wisdom and spirit of every aspect of God's Laws so that they do not end up as something lifeless and burdensome for the people

3:48-50"And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tawrat and the Injeel..And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".

By the beginning of the 1st century Judaism was a sterile, lifeless organism, waiting to be infused with a spirituality that only Jesus could provide.

Jesus repeatedly condemned those traditions in the NT, denounced the Jews and their leaders as "hypocrites" and told the people to beware of these "teachers of law" for their soulless traditions, and "children of the Devil" because of their claim of inherited righteousness through their affiliation to Abraham Jn8:37-44.

Not in one single instance within the whole NT is it reported that Jesus said that the law of Moses needs to be abandoned, contrary to Paul who besides stating it was a curse Gal3:13 given not by God but by angels Gal3:19-25,Heb2:2 declared it obsolete Rom3:20,7:4,10:4,Heb8:13,Gal2:21,3:23-25,4:21-31,5:1,Eph2:15 even describing his former Jewish beliefs as worthless, rejecting his former Jewishness by warning of Jewish dogs saying in the original Greek

Phil3:2-8"I consider them excrement".

He told people he was seeking to convert that they were now under the vague 'law of Christ'. Jesus himself never alludes to such law, hence it being unknown to any of those who met and followed him and respected all Jewish laws to the letter as per his actual instructions. That law of christ, tailored so as to apeal to Paul's mainly pagan audience, has removed the old burden from mankind 1Corin9:21,Gal6:2. He sometimes paid lip service to the Law if the situation or audience required a show of obedience to the law Acts21:20-26 but immidiately denounced the likes of James and Peter for telling the Gentiles to follow the law Gal2, evidently because it attracted less converts.

As regards Matt26:28 and elsewhere where it is believed Jesus declared the ushering of a "new" covenant "This is my blood of the new covenant", some manuscripts have "new" others dont and even if we go with the former translations, there is still the problem of Jesus allegedly ushering in a new covenant yet he specifically told his followers to abide by the Law or what Paul refered to as the Old covenant, which Jesus called "the way" and upheld to the letter. Where did Jesus say the Law of Moses would become "old" and needed to be abandonned subsequently to his alleged sacrifice?

In fact, we find in the Gospels Jesus invoking the Torah when arguing with the religious elite because Jesus' mission was exposing the Pharisees for their hypocritical and rigid application of the Torah, not to abolish it. He gives the example of David who worked on the Sabbath, driven by necessity to eat food Matt12:1-8,1Sam21:1-6. He was this way upholding the spirit of the Law because saving a life is lawful on the Sabbath per the Torah Mk3:4 hence his quoting from

Hosea6:6"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice".

The Rabbis knew and understood this, that is why they couldn't answer as there was no violation of the Law. Similarly when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath because he healed the sick, what he was actually doing once again is exposing their rigid and soulless outlook of the religion. He took advantage of that situation to infuse the law with its lost wisdom. He showed them the Torah itself allowed circumsising or caring for an animal on a sabbath, then what to say of helping a suffering human being Matt12:9-13,Jn7:23-4,Lk13:10-17,Mk3:1-6. By breaking it he was doing what he "sees" the Father doing, sustaining His creation at all times. Jesus, the most knowledgeable person among his contemporaries in religious law further told his Jewish audience that he was in this way working together with God. As correctly understood by the faithfull blind man who was cured on Sabbath, this action did not make Jesus a sinner nor a blasphemer as his enemies among the Jews accused him, but rather a true prophet Jn11:11-33.

Yet even to this day, the Talmudic "sages" whose legalistic deductions are viewed as God-given still hold that

“one does not assist a gentile woman in childbirth on the Sabbath” (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 330:2).

The Quran accurately sums up Jesus' mission as such

3:50"And a verifier of that which is before me of the Torah and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you".

Jesus verified the truth remaining in the past scriptures, relieved the bani Israel of some of the things forbidden to them through the soulless and far fetched conjectures of their rabbis. That is what Jesus meant when he told his disciples that they must practice and teach these laws to the letter while surpassing the "righteousness" of the Pharisees, meaning they must practice the body and soul of the law not only the body as they did

"whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven". 

Per the Quran, the divine mercy is such that when it is absolutely necessary for survival, or in circumstances beyond one's control, there is no blame if one transgresses temporarily. But in all cases -normal or extraordinary- the spirit of the divine law must be kept in mind. This is demonstrated in 2:173-7 where in the context of mentionning the forbidden foods, the Quran reminds that distorting what God has revealed and profiting from it, ie not acting accordingly is equal to consumming fire.

 The Quran further says that the essence of religion is faith in God and benevolence towards men

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)".

Acts17apologetics trust their saints; did Paul confirm Jesus' message?

In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"

Paul was spending all day in his writings trying to gain credibility as seen in the Epistles, saying he was equal to, if not greater, than the Apostles of Jesus and making statements such as even if angels were to come down, and they said differently than what he was preaching, not the believe the angel. That is in stark contrast with the Paul described in Acts, supposedly written by his disciple Luke, where he is more of a team player, subordinated to the early apostles of Jesus.

And yet the man never once met Jesus in his life, and here he was coming to those that knew and followed him, telling them they were all wrong the whole time. He never even quotes him once in any of his writings, doesnt show any knowledge about the historical Jesus at all. He was all for the assimilation of the Gentiles into the Judaic faith, and the Jews compromising on their faith as opposed to the other way around. Thus, his focus on grace as opposed to law.

He asserts his authority before the Greek people, but never to the community in Jerusalem, and more particularly James, Jesus' brother. James' approval was necessary for anyone claiming to preach Jesus' teachings as explicitly stated in the church-rejected Pseudo-Clementine chapter 4 and implicitly alluded to by Paul in 2Cor3:1-6,1 Cor9:2,Gal1:20-24. He sharply disagrees with James and what Jesus taught when he preached salvation through faith alone Rom3:30. James, like all prophets of the scriptures, repeated the basic principle that faith and deeds go hand in hand and that one without the other is useless James2:19-22. So important are the good deeds for one's salvation in the Hereafter that the prophets prayed God to remember these deeds for the final judgement Neh13:14.

Paul's authority was constantly challenged, not only by Christians but by Jews whom he went seeking in their synagogues. In Acts21, Paul is asked to partake in the Nazirite purification sacrifice to prove he was still "kosher". After all he is the one to have initiated the deceptive missionary modus operandi (Jew to a Jew, gentile to a gentile etc). This challenge to Paul shows something important, Jesus' earliest followers were still practicing sacrifices after Jesus' death and never believed Jesus abolished the mosaic law, much less the sacrificial system. Why would he, when the HB to which he abided to the letter, explicitly says that all the mosaic law including animal sacrifices will be reinstated once the 3rd temple is built.

As to the Christians that challenged him, he accused them, more particularly Jesus' disciples and apostles of being false and deceitful 2Cor11:13-15, sarcastically said they "seemed to be pillars" of the church Gal2:9, even cursed them Gal5:12. It took 3 angelic appearances to confirm and justify Paul's abrogation of the mosaic dietary laws and others laws, to Jesus' early disciples. Peter reconsidered his firm stance on abiding by these laws, when he was eventually convinced that abrogating dietary laws like not eating pork would result in Romans being saved from Hell. If Jesus' message was what Paul said it was the entire time, why did it take a vision, reinforced repeatedly, for Peter to do something that Jesus had allegedly already instructed him to do? Sometimes Christians try finding justification for Paul's dietary reforms in Jesus' saying

Mk7:14-19"There is nothing that goes into a person from the outside which can make him ritually unclean. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that makes him unclean...Nothing that goes into a person from outside can really make him unclean, because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body".

If all food is good for consumption regardless of pre meal rituals because it merely enters stomach and not the heart then why are James and Paul himself so concerned about food offered to idols Acts15,1Cor10? Jesus here wasnt denying the law, rather infusing it with a much needed spiritual dimension, as he applied himself to do all throughout his career. Similarly, the sabbath, whose transgression is punishable by death according to the Law upheld by Jesus, became a matter of free choice with no consequence Col2:16-17,Rom14:4 thus easing the way further for any potential converts. 

Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier christian thought was quickly branded heretical.

After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favorable audience.

Paul's major tenet is that man is a slave to sin, cannot reach holiness by his actions, and must be "saved" from inherent damnation. One by his own will cannot choose to turn to God unless by God's grace. The doctrine was further developed by Augustine of Hippo but some righteous early christians objected and were quickly branded as heretical. Among Augustine's powerful arguments was that human depravity could be demonstrated by the "involuntariness" of the male erection. This base impulse belonged to nature, or the flesh, not to the spirit. In his logic, because of man's uncontrolable urges, it was women who had to be constrained. Tertullian taught when a parent sinned, this physical taint of the soul was passed on to children.

Paul applied himself to give everyone a reason to reconsider Jesus’ death, now turned into a suicide mission planed since the beginning of creation. But the cursed law of Moses stood in his way. If one could find salvation through obedience to the law, as all past prophets including Jesus taught, then it would make Jesus' supposedly purposeful sacrifice redundant 

Gal2:21"If righteousness come by law, Christ is dead in vain".

Acts17apologetics shallow standards of revelation; Paul sees the light?

In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"

On his road to Damascus, about a year and a half following Jesus' alleged crucifixion, Paul claims to have seen Jesus in a vision. If we were to analyze these variant descriptions, made by the same man, as in a court of law, they would be thrown out as fabrication. We're not talking about the variations usually written off as being complimentary, such as the vision addressing Paul in Acts 9 with

“Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me… I am Jesus”

then in Acts22 with

“Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me… I am Jesus of Nazareth“

and in Acts 26 with

“Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads… I am Jesus”.

More serious defects in the reports of the event, made by the same man are what cast doubt on its verracity. In Acts 9:3-7 Paul falls to the ground when the vision appears to him while those with him didnt see anything except hearing Jesus'voice. In Acts 22:6-9 the others didnt hear anything but saw the light and in Acts 26:14 all fall contradicting 9:3-7. Christians usually try harmonizing the accounts in light of the tenses and forms of the Greek words akouo and phone. These attempts are all inconsistent in light of the usage of these words throughout the NT.

Akouo is translated 373 times in the NT as hear, then suddenly changed to "understand" in 22:9 so as to not contradict Paul's other accounts of the encounter. There are many similar examples of apologetics playing with words and Greek tenses to harmonize the story, none of them standing the test of the rules of language.

During the whole incident, this "light" which appeared to Paul fails to take any explicit form in order to be identified as Jesus. One must be very cautions here, according to 2Corinthians satan can disguise himself in the most trustworthy appearance such as an angel of light so as to fulfill his purpose. This light certainly did gain Paul's trust as it incited him to contravene and innovate most of what the God of the Torah, let alone Jesus and the previous prophets taught.

Paul, a sworn enemy of Jesus that suddenly sees the "light" and changes his course, surely was the perfect candidate that fit the satanic purpose of infiltrating the original disciples and corrupting them from within, destroying the law Jesus abided by to the letter, through resorting to lies, camouflaging and deceit in order that "Christ is preached", instructing his missionary followers to resort to the same deceptive tactics. His objective was to disseminate as far and wide as possible a system of beliefs described even by the early church fathers and saints the likes of Justin Martyr as

"no different from what you (pagans) believe".

Acts17apologetics really like their saints; Paul was persecuted?

In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"

His preaching in synagogues was met with fierce resistance due to his bad mouthing the Law, and not even in a clever way. For instance contrary to repeated descriptions made of the law in the HB as "life giving" in places like Ezekiel20:11,33:14-15 or Nehemiah9:26-29 as well as spiritually preserving, a purifying delight to observe Ps119, a sentiment clearly reflected in James' writings, Paul sees the law as "stirring" into sin and death. Without it, one

Rom7"would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

As if non religious people cannot discern basic moral principles such as these? Paul's inspired "reasoning" leads him to the conclusion that without law there is no transgression Rom4:14. It is better to leave man without moral restrictions, so that he is only justified and judged according to faith in Jesus, something Jesus himself never taught.

But what this hateful perception of the Law shows, is that divine revelation has diametrically opposed effects on individuals depending on their own inner spiritual disposition. It is certainly repulsing to the depraved to have to abide by moral restrictions, while the God-conscious delights in serving the Creator according to His own terms, as amply stated in the HB. Paul saw himself as part of the first group, as he describes himself relentlessly tortured by a messenger from Satan 2Cor12:7.

Paul was disparaging the Law yet the agreement between him and the apostles was that he should seek non-Jews, while they went to the Jews Gal2:9.

He consequently escapes murderous Jews in most of his stops along his missionary journeys Acts14:19.

In Jerusalem, the Roman commander saves him from the Sanhedrin's grip and the Jews apparently were so eager in their murderous intents that they werent deterred from planning an assault on his Roman prison. A cohort of 500 Roman soldiers and imperial guards had to leave Jerusalem to be dispatched to this helpless fellow.

They protected and escorted him by night for a "proper" trial in Caesarea Acts21-24. Amazingly, Luke who is alleged to have authored Acts, reproduces the letter written by the Roman commander to his superior in Caesarea Acts23:26-30. The letter doesnt mention Paul and makes a chronological mistake. It says the commander rescued him because he knew Paul was a Roman citizen. He obviously had to, the probability of a Roman commander turning out to rescue a Jew from his brethren is very slim.

Yet we read in Acts22:23-29 that the commander rescued Paul from the Jews before he had learnt this information, after which he was given to the Sanhedrin for questionning. Besides that slip, did Luke have access to Roman archives to reproduce the letter? But then Luke also knows what was said in Antipas' apartments when he questioned Jesus Lk23:7-11, as well as what Festus and Agrippa said to each other in private concerning Paul Acts25:13-22. Probably all "God-breathed" details as noted by 2Tim3:16.

And why didnt James, the elders, or the "thousands" of Jesus converts, say a word in Paul's defense? Instead we have Roman troops rushing to his rescue to avoid hateful Jewish mobs murdering him. In Caesarea, he is presented before the Roman governor Felix. He served from the year 52 until the year 60. The head of the Sanhedrin was the Jewish high priest Ananias the son of Nebedeus. Historical records show instead that before Felix's appointment as governor, the high priest Ananias had been arrested and sent to Rome to plead his case, in the year 52. Josephus names the high priests during Felix's governorship, and says nothing about Ananias son of Nebedeus.

Anyhow, Felix, one of the richest and most powerful man in the province, will keep Paul jailed for 2 years, hoping for a "bribe". As if none of the murderous Jewish leaders could have bribed him if the detention was simply about money. Strangely no angry Jew even as much as pleaded that he be handled to them, until Felix's replacement with Festus. Festus eventually dismissed their request but nevertheless wants to "please" them by suggesting a trial in Jerusalem Acts25. Compare this to the apostles' delivrance from jail through divine intervention Acts5:17-20 and yet no miraculous appearance to save Paul to whom Jesus himself appeared.

But persecuted Paul had his own type of luck. The charges against him were relegated to mere religious matters Acts23:29,25:19,25:26-27 and consequently dismissed by both Festus and the Jewish king Herod Agrippa who just so happenned to be in town Acts26:32. All this happened before even the hearing of his case in Jerusalem. Follows a bizarre twist, with persecuted Paul given another escort, this time to Rome and to present his case to none other than Caesar himself. This wasnt event needed, persecuted Paul himself made the request despite all local authorities clearing him from any charges. There was never such an instance in the Roman judicial system of overruling local authorities' decisions simply by "appeal to Caesar" Acts26:32.

And we're not even talking of an unfavorable ruling but one that had just aqcuited him! The high priest Jonathan was put to death by the procurator Felix just a few years earlier, surely he could have made the same appeal as Paul did? Whoever was writing the plot of Acts surely did a lousy job until now at defending Paul's case of unjust persecution. At approximately the same time of Paul's appeal, another appeal was made to the Caesar Nero, by the Jewish High Priest Ismael. Nero agreed influenced by his own Jewish wife. However, Ismael was held imprisonned in Rome. The author of Acts had a clear political and theological motive in mind, supposedly endorsed by Jesus Acts23:11 through inspiration: to move his story on towards a necessary climax in Rome.

Upon his arrival to Rome, he was allowed to live in a house, summon Jews and other visitors to preach to them freely, protected by a soldier Acts28:16-31.

The so-called "prison letters" – Philippians, Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians are traditionally ascribed to Paul in his Roman captivity despite recent Biblical scholarship opinion to the contrary. Nothing evokes imprisonnement in these writings except for the vague and isolated references "prisoner in Jesus Christ" and "bonds" to endorse that claim. Pauline vocabulary is full of such words evoking servitude, suffering and "imprisonment", all of which to convey the idea of his metaphorical servitude to Jesus. "Rome" is nowhere mentioned in any of the prison letters. The whole claim rests on the single reference to "Caesar's household" of Phil4:22, and the use of "palace" in Phil1:13"My 
bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places".

It is said he was finally acquitted of the charges against him and therefore started travelling around Europe and the Mediterranean coasts to spread his teachings to the gentiles.
It is hard therefore to imagine how he would be arrested again by the same Nero then executed, as tradition alledges. The Church needed the fabrication of that itinary in order to render authentic 1 and 2 Timothy, as well as Titus since in the latter, Paul anticipates his soon reunion with other Christians in Greece Titus3:12,13.

Acts17apologetics love their saints; Paul expert of the HB, and was a Pharisee?

In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"

Paul always quotes from the translation of the HB into Greek, i.e. the Septuagint and misrepresents the sources he is quoting. For example in Rom11:26 he quotes Isa59:20 as such

"The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob"

thus attempting to establish scriptural support for the concept of Jesus' atoning death. However the Hebrew original, of which he knew nothing about, says the oppostie in Isa59:20"A redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord". It stresses the oppostie of what Paul ineptly tries to convey. It says the messiah will come when people turn away from sins FIRST, not that he will redeem people from their sins. Interestingly, many NT translations render the verse correctly in Isa59:20 and incorrectly in Rom11:26.

A study of the Bible in the original Hebrew was the basis for all Pharisee studies. The Rabbis thus held this Greek Septuagint translation with little esteem, for many reasons. It symbolized the Hellenization of the Jewish people, hence the rabbis' distrust, more specifically the pharisees whom Paul supposedly was part of. It is Luke, the supposed author of Acts, that gives Paul this Pharisaic background, in addition trained by some of the most renowed rabbis of the time such as Gamaliel I (Acts22). Paul himself, in the letters attributed to him makes no such claim. He instead despised the Jewish Law, described it with the crudest of ways no Jew would ever dare doing. Given his bold confession to resort to deceptive missionary methods, especially when preaching to Jews, ie gentile to a gentile, a Jew to a Jew 1Cor9:20-23 one may only wonder how true was he in his obsessive appeals to his Jewishness Gal1:13-14,2Cor11:22,Phil3:5. 

He came from Tarsus according to the NT, where historically there were few, if any, Pharisee teachers and a Pharisee training would have been hard to come by. 

There arent even any records of Jewish citizen having lived there. It isnt surprising that early Christians like Jerome attempted to correct this by reporting that he in fact came from Galilee. 

No Jewish writings exist of a 1st or 2nd century student of Gamaliel who, following his studies in which he excelled, and was so zealous in his Jewish orthodoxy that he enforced it through persecutions on behalf of the high priests, and in whose name letters were written to synagogues attesting to his authority Acts9, suddenly rebelling in favor of a heresy. Not only that but urged his followers to disregard the very law he was zealously enforcing. Surely such a renegade could not have completely escaped the attention of the scribes? Josephus speaks of virtually all of Paul's main characters found in Acts with but one exception, Paul himself. 

The Gospels themselves, neither mention nor even hint at Paul. Another thing to mention is that the Jewish authorities neither had the power nor need to send a "chief persecutor" all the way to Damascus, where Paul had on the way his encounter with a light, to harass a group of rebellious Jews who believed the messiah had arrived. The Jews of Israel had much more pressing concerns in their everyday life living under Roman dominion than to care about a far away Jewish heresy. It is interesting that even in Acts5 we read that Gamaliel was against punishing Christians.

But accepting the NT's claim as true for argument's sake, for a Rabbi to quote a translation looked over with such suspicion shows how lacking he was in Rabbinic training. To them, it symbolized all that was wrong with the Jewish people. Paul could have quoted from the Hebrew Bible, but he never did. Paul was most probably a Roman pagan who held both Roman and Greek citizenships. We even read in Ebionite writings of the 2nd century that he was a Greek convert to Judaism, that later apostaised when the High Priest rejected his marriage offer to his daughter.

In the Acts of the Apostles, when Paul finally returns to Jerusalem to have his showdown with James, Acts records that the Jews have him arrested by the Romans. He then invokes his ROMAN citizenship Acts22:28, asking whether it is lawful to treat a Roman citizen in such a manner. Later, while Peter, James and the others are arrested Paul again invokes his Roman citizenship by appealing his case directly to the emperor. Only a Roman citizen of the upper social classes would be afforded this ability and if Jews had that right, then why didn't Peter, James and the others do the same?

The Bible does not say how or when Paul died, and history does not provide any information. It is only Christian tradition that has some unreliable accounts on how his life ended around the mid 60s A.D., during the reign of Nero.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html
    "But there is great uncertainty on these subjects, so that we cannot positively rely on any account that even the ancients have transmitted to us concerning the death of this apostle; and much less on the accounts given by the moderns; and least of all on those which are to be found in the Martyrologists. Whether Paul ever returned after this to Rome has not yet been satisfactorily proved. It is probable that he did, and suffered death there, as stated above; but still we have no certainty" (Commentary on the Bible by Adam Clarke, commenting on Acts 28:31).

During what can safely be described as an "infiltration" into the early Christian movement by its chief persecutor who allegedly reformed himself due to a vision that contradicts itself from account to account, Saul of Tarsus now renamed Paul, was protected throughout his "ministry" from the Jewish crowd wanting to kill him by the Roman authorities who had even deployed an army for his sake Acts16:37-39,21:31-32,22:25-29,23:12-27,25:11-12,24-25,26:32 and who apparently even acquitted him from all charges laid against him by the Jews Acts23:29,25:13-26:31.