David Wood Shows a Weakness of Islam and of Protestantism

... against Maurice Buccaille, Basically · David Wood Shows a Weakness of Islam and of Protestantism · David Wood Partly Attacking Wrong Things in Islam

Though, the latter he would not have been aware of, totally?

Here is his video, under it are my comments:

The Quran, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma
Acts17Apologetics | 20.IX.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNAS0aaViM4

4:04 Mohammed is nowhere mentioned in our Scriptures.

Well, they would, some of them, claim "Parakletos" (advocate, a name of the Holy Ghost) should be "Periklytos" (famous, which is also the Arabic meaning of Mohammed).

One reason more to reject Islam.

4:11 "except the general admonitions against false prophets trying to pull us away from the Gospel"

Well, obviously, Mohammed really is one of those ... with Joseph Smith, Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer and a few more.

8:20 I am very much reminded of Luther here.

He based all on a book he had from the Catholic Church.

Not just that, he could have read in that book that the Church Jesus founded would always subsist as a teacher (Matthew 28:20).

But Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist sects obviously have not done that, since they come from the Reformation.

So, if Matthew 28:20 is false, Lutheranism is false because Christianity as a whole is false.

If Matthew 28:20 is true, Lutheranism is false because Christianity is described as having another type of Church than Lutheranism.

Ruckmanite Baptists are a little better off, they are not directly contradicting Matthew 28:20, but they are contradicting known Church History in affirming Baptism has always been the Church in unbroken succession.

Studylight actually has St Thomas Aquinas' commentary (compilation) on Gospels, and I quote from that on Matthew 28, section verses 16-20

"Chrysol, Serm. 80: Thus all nations are created a second time to salvation by that one and the same Power, which created them to being."

OK, we are therefore dealing with a Church which converts nations. Ruckmanite baptism or ... Catholicism, of some sort?

"Jerome: Observe the order of these injunctions. He bids the Apostles first to teach all nations, then to wash them with the sacrament of faith, and after faith and baptism then to teach them what things they ought to observe; "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.""

"Raban.: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." [James 2:26]"

"Chrys.: And because what He had laid upon them was great, therefore to exalt their spirits He adds, "And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." As much as to say, Tell Me not of the difficulty of these things, seeing I am with you, Who can make all things easy. A like promise He often made to the Prophets in the Old Testament, to Jeremiah who pleaded his youth, to Moses, and to Ezekiel, when they would have shunned the office imposed upon them. And not with them only does He say that He will be, but with all who shall believe after them. For the Apostles were not to continue till the end of the world, but He says this to the faithful as to one body."

So, Catholicism (of some sort, RC or EO) has to be actually teaching the right things to do ...

"Bede, Beda in Hom., non occ.: It is made a question how He says here, "I am with you," when we read elsewhere that He said, "I go unto him that sent me." [Jonah 16:5]

"What is said of His human nature is distinct from what is said of His divine nature. He is going to His Father in His human nature, He abides With His disciples in that form in which He is equal with the Father. When He says, "to the end of the world," He expresses the infinite by the finite; for He who remains in this present world with His elect, protecting them, the same will continue with them after the end, rewarding them."

"Jerome: He then who promises that He will be with His disciples to the end of the world, shews both that they shall live for ever, and that He will never depart from those that believe."

from Golden Chain Commentary, Matthew 28
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gcc/matthew-28.html

Never is a big word.

A few centuries of "dark ages" is a biig exception to such a big word.

This obviously also takes care of the Muslim claim (the common one, not the Coranic one you have been showing forth).

Yeah, let's encourage Muslims and Protestants to take Matthew 28:20 seriously, as the three religions (the two mentioned and Catholicism) all require!

Addition on same topic:

Is Muhammad an Antichrist According to the Bible?
Acts17Apologetics | 8.II.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDH0uUMUNKk

Actually, it is also said that if you deny Christ came in the flesh, you are an antichrist, and this seems to be behind several Evangelical ideas about Eucharist, Mary, Christ in Heaven, ourselves in Heaven, which are in very active conflict with the Catholic Church and fairly traceable to denying "et incarnatus est".

Or, from Creed to the Angelus which is so popular on Malta "et Verbum Dei caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis".

"For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist."
[2 John 1:7]

This obviously applies to Islam and Christ-Rejecting Judaism too - which are ultimate roots of Evangelical Protestantism on this point.

But sure, what you said about Islam being a false religion is correct.