Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and

contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the
Bible", which I watched on theHistory Channel, some of Saint
Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain
what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared
that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross
laughing. These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know
about.
According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among
Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by
GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse",
which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also,
this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with
inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of
time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people
of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order
the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to
enter Heaven for Good. Thisapocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble
Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will
eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please
visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to

Peter), cross (according to others), or never got
crucified (according to Islam)?
The sections of this article:
1- Was Jesus crucified on a tree, cross or never got crucified?
2- According to the book of Hebrews, Jesus never got crucified!
3- Conclusion.

One of the most ironic and ridiculous things in the Bible is that the contradictions in
its accounts. Everyday I see Christians wearing crosses as necklaces and I hear them
talk about how Jesus died on the "cross" for our sins. When one reads a supposed
Divine Holy Book, he would expect the book to at the very least consistent and errorfree. Otherwise, the book is worthless and those who insist on elating it to be a
Divine one are committing blasphemy against GOD Almighty and His Divine
Perfection.
According to the Bible, many have witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus. All of his
disciples have witnessed it and all of them supposedly wrote their testimonies about
the event. Therefore, one would expect the same exact story with slight differences in
narrations to be told. Major differences that can only be classified
as CONTRADICTIONS can not be accepted, and they only prove that the entire
book is a hoax.
Having said all of that, let us look at what the Bible says about Jesus' crucifixion
story:
Peter's account: Jesus was crucified on a tree according to the books of "Acts"
and "1 Peter".
Acts 5
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather
than men.
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give
repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 10
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who
went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was
with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in
Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

Acts 13
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he
should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from
the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
30 But God raised him from the dead:
1 Peter 2
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not;
but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead
to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and
Bishop of your souls.

Others' accounts: Jesus was crucified on the cross.

Matthew 27
39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save
thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
Matthew 27
41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now
come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am
the Son of God.
Mark 15
29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou
that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes,
He saved others; himself he cannot save.

Mark 15
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes,
He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and
believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until
the ninth hour.
Luke 23
25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison,
whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out
of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.
27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also
bewailed and lamented him.
John 19
18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in
the midst.
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF
NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was
nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

As we clearly see above, there is a clear contradiction in the Bible about Jesus'
crucifixion. Did it happen on the cross, or did it happen on a tree?

According to the book of Hebrews, Jesus never

got crucified!

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and
contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the
Bible", which I watched on theHistory Channel, some of Saint Peter's Epistles were
banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that
Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned
part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts
of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.

Conclusion:
The Bible of today contains errors and contradictions in it. It is biased and ridiculous
to claim that it is all Divine and Perfect. The stories about Jesus' crucifixion and
resurrection in the New Testament are all doubtful. As a Muslim, I take only the parts
of the Bible that directly agree with the Noble Quran. These parts are the closest to
the Truth. The rest have to be discarded especially after knowing that they contain
big and unexplainable contradictions in them.

Who Authored The New Testament?

In the comments section of one of his articles, Christian polemist David Wood claimed:
Who says we don't know who the authors are? With the exception of the Letter to the
Hebrews (and I have a good idea who wrote that), I'd say we know who wrote every book
of the New Testament. Of course, if we're going to be skeptical (as many people are when
it comes to the Bible), we'd also have to be skeptical about the Qur'an and the Hadith.
What happens when we're skeptical about Muslim sources? Ask your Muslim brother
from Germany, who declared that Muhammad probably never existed. (My point here is
that you should be consistent in your level of skepticism. You're clearly not.)
It is ironic to have this lecture on 'scepticism' coming from one who has killed a lot of time
composing articles promoting the hyper-sceptic grand Uthman conspiracy hypothesis (and has
been humiliated in the comments section on his own blog by some Muslims. See here & here).
When it comes to the New Testament, the hyper-sceptic - who has always been unwilling to give
any amount of reasonable consideration to the Quran - lowers his hyper-sceptical standards to
such colossally low levels that they transform into standards of hyper-acceptance, whereby every
benefit of doubt is granted to the New Testament irrespective of the evidence.
After reading the above, it is extremely difficult to resist the conclusion that Wood has probably
never read a basic introductory book on the New Testament in his life and is thoroughly
unfamiliar with New Testament scholarship. Otherwise, he is just being outright deceptive and
lying when he asserts that "we know who wrote every book of the New Testament." But we will
give him the extraordinary benefit of doubt and suppose that he is genuinely ignorant about New
Testament scholarship.
Wood does not explain why one must necessarily reject the historical existence of Muhammad
(peace be upon him) for being 'sceptical' towards the Muslim sources? In reality, non-Muslim
scholars who do not just blindly accept the authenticity of all Muslim sources such as the hadith
and who do not share Muslim religious presuppositions, do generally accept the historical
existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him) without question.
The second problem is Wood's startling suggestion that the widespread doubts prevalent among
mainstream New Testament scholars towards the authorship of a number of New Testament
writings is equivalent to the scepticism towards the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be
upon him) being promoted by one lone German scholar who hit the radar screen a while ago.
Wood wants us to believe that the two are the outcome of the 'same level of scepticism'!
Before addressing his highflying claims about the authorship of the New Testament documents,
we need to first get rid of Wood's equally absurd comment regarding the historical existence of
Muhammad (peace be upon him).

The historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him) is accepted by almost all nonMuslim scholars,including, with few exceptions, the hyper-sceptical ones as well. To give
readers a feel of the strength of Muhammad's (peace be upon him) historical existence and its
almost universal acceptance, we will provide the example of Patricia Crone, the author of the
infamous Hagarism. There have been few as sceptical as Crone in the history and development
of Western Islamic studies. In a recent essay entitled, "What do we actually know about
Mohammed?", Crone has this to say about the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon
him):
...we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone
Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal
more.
She goes on to say:
There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it
notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years
of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between
632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and
dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and
chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.
Crone says:
.this [Greek text] source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was an historical
figure. Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies
him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching.
Moreover:
On the Islamic side, sources dating from the mid-8th century onwards preserve a
document drawn up between Mohammed and the inhabitants of Yathrib, which there are
good reasons to accept as broadly authentic; Mohammed is also mentioned by name,
and identified as a messenger of God, four times in theQur'an.
Crone concludes:
The evidence that a prophet was active among the Arabs in the early decades of the 7th
century, on the eve of the Arab conquest of the middle east, must be said to be
exceptionally good.
Regarding the Quran itself, Crone writes:
Most importantly, we can be reasonably sure that the Qur'an is a collection of
utterances that he made in the belief that they had been revealed to him by God. The
book may not preserve all the messages he claimed to have received, and he is not
responsible for the arrangement in which we have them. They were collected after his

death - how long after is controversial. But that he uttered all or most of them is
difficult to doubt.
If such a sceptical scholar as Crone does not doubt the historical existence of Muhammad (peace
be upon him), then that should give us an indication of the might of the evidence. Putting aside
certain questionable details and claims in Crone's essay, we will reiterate her relevant words:
"we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone
Moses or the Buddha)."
We would also like to recommend our readers to read this excellent article by the Islamic
Awareness team:
Dated Texts Mentioning Prophet Muhammad From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE
In light of the above, it is sheer lunacy and intellectually dishonest for any Christian to promote
the thesis of Muhammad's (peace be upon him) non-existence as long as the historical existence
of Jesus (peace be upon him) continues to be accepted without question. A Christian would first
and foremost need to fully discard the historical existence of Jesus (peace be upon him) before
even venturing towards the path of denying Muhammad's (peace be upon him) historical
existence. In Wood's own words, 'you should be consistent in your level of skepticism'.
The so-called 'Muslim brother from Germany' who declared that 'Muhammad probably never
existed' is the equivalent of Wood's 'Christian sister from America', Acharya S, the author of, The
Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold and other crackpot authors. Both authors have
reached bizarre conclusions by playing potty with the historical data.
To dare compare this level of absurd scepticism, shared by a few, towards the historical existence
of Muhammad (peace be upon him) with the legitimate concerns widely shared by scholars
towards the authorship of a number of New Testament documents tells us how astonishingly
ignorant Wood truly is.
The deceitful tactic employed by Wood is to make the blatantly false analogy between the doubts
commonly held by scholars - mainstream scholars - over the authorship of a number of New
Testament writings with the denial of the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him)
being promoted by a lone German scholar who has just recently come to the limelight (and who,
by the way, also denies the historical existence of Moses (peace be upon him) and other
prophets). The two are not the 'same level of scepticism'. The scepticism held by some towards
the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him) is completely different from the
wide-ranging controversies pertaining to the authorship of a number of New Testament
documents. In order to deny Muhammad's (peace be upon him) existence, one is required to
dismiss and explain-away all of the evidence one way or the other - be it the Quran, authentic
reports, inscriptions from well within hundred years after Muhammad's (peace be upon him)
passing away, together with the non-Muslim references to Muhammad (peace be upon him) etc.
One then has to accomplish the difficult, if not impossible, task of explaining the origin and
emergence of Islam from the mythical Muhammad (peace be upon him) hypothesis. If a

Christian is willing to take this step and has the courage to be 'consistent' in their 'level of
scepticism', then not much, if anything, will be left of the historical Jesus (peace be upon him)
for the simple reason that there are comparatively even fewer sources to consider in this instance
which, moreover, are nowhere as early as the Islamic sources to the alleged events and
individuals in question. In this instance we are not merely being 'sceptical' towards the sources;
we are wholesale rejecting them in toto. One is not required to be even remotely as dismissive
towards the New Testament documents in order to notice, for instance, the problems associated
with the traditional authorship claims of a number of New Testament writings and to doubt their
accuracy (be it total or partial).
The latter is primarily an inter-Christian discussion, where mostly committed Christians are
involved in the arguments, dealing with difficult historical questions and supporting their
conclusions with well thought-out arguments. It is not the case of 'sceptics' denying the
traditional authorship claims for a number of New Testament documents for the sake of being
'sceptics' or for the 'fun' of it. On the contrary, those who deny the authorship claims of the
various New Testament documents mostly happen to be committed Christians who are genuinely
concerned and wish to get in terms with the historical data in the most reasonable manner
possible.
As Christians began to study the New Testament documents critically, taking into account the
historical evidence, scholars had to adjust a number of earlier beliefs about the New Testament in
light of the clearer picture yielded by a critical study of the documents. For instance, Matthean
priority was replaced with Marcan priority, the Byzantine text form was seen to be a later text
form, the fourth gospel was understood to be more of a theological tract, and legitimate doubts
began to emerge pertaining to the authorship of a number of New Testament books. Sticking with
the question of authorship, the current situation is that the authorship of a number of New
Testament documents is being openly debated among mainstream New Testament scholars.
While it is true that we are reasonably certain about the authorship of a number of New
Testament writings - such as the undoubtedly genuine Pauline Epistles, Revelation (by one
'John', about whom nothing else is known), and, perhaps, Luke-Acts (probably by a one time
travel companion of Paul) - doubts also continue to abound on the accuracy of traditional
authorship claims of a number of writings.
We will offer a rough summary of the current stance of New Testament scholarship on the
authorship question:
Beginning with the gospels, these are, strictly speaking, anonymous documents since their
authors do not identify/name themselves. The vast majority of scholars find the various
authorship traditions problematic for a variety of reasons. Matthew's traditional authorship is
only sometimes defended, almost always by the most conservative, giving Matthew either full
credit for the final form of the gospel or limited contribution therein. Many conservatives do not
deem Matthew to be responsible for the final form of this gospel. Many scholars do, however,
grant the real possibility of Luke, a short time companion of Paul and not an eyewitness to Jesus'
(peace be upon him) historical ministry, as being the author of the third gospel and Acts. A
number of scholars, some moderate but mostly conservatives, also defend the traditional
authorship claim for Mark's gospel and, mostly conservative scholars, assign the fourth gospel,

either fully or partially, to an apostle of Jesus (peace be upon him), with many crediting a later
redactor for its final form.
The overwhelming majority regards the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus) to
have been authored by an unknown person either (more probably) in the late first or the early
second century. According to Raymond Brown, '80 to 90 percent of critical scholarship' deem
Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy to be pseudonymous. (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction To The
New Testament, 1997, Doubleday, p. 639, 654, 673). The consensus considers II Peter to be
pseudonymous; with a few exceptions, many conservative scholars are also not too eager to
defend Petrine authorship. G.A. Wells states:
R.T France declares, in his 1993 survey of Evangelical Anglicans, that today few
even among evangelical Christians would try to defend its [II Peter'] Petrine
authorship with any enthusiasm'. (G. A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament?:
Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony, 2004, Open Court
Publishing Company, p. 66).
Most regard I Peter to be pseudonymous, although there are many scholars who also defend its
Petrine authorship; the Johannine epistles are widely deemed to be anonymous documents.
Considerable disputes rage among Christian scholars on the authorship of: II Thessalonians.
Raymond Brown states:
Scholars are almost evenly divided on whether Paul wrote it, although the view that
he did not seems to be gaining ground even among moderates. (Brown, New
Testament Introduction, p. 591)
Regarding the book of Colossians, Brown says that 'about 60 percent of critical
scholarship' deem it to be pseudonymous (New Testament Introduction, p. 600), and
regarding Ephesians 'about 80 percent of critical scholarship' considers it to be
pseudonymous (Ibid., p. 621). Hebrews is anonymous (although various scholars have proposed
guesses on the identity of the author). Many regard James to be pseudonymous as Brown states
'most think it was written by someone (a disciple?) who admired the image of James as the
Christian authority most loyal to Judaism.' (Ibid, p. 726). Jude is also often considered to be
pseudonymous.
There are plenty of conservative evangelical scholars who also doubt the traditional authorship
claims of a number of New Testament writings, considering them to be anonymous and some
even to be pseudonymous. There is diversity within conservative scholarship and not many
promote an inerranist view of the Bible. There are very few who do regard the Bible to be
inerrant in the sense Wood presumes it to be inerrant. On top of this, there are many more
moderate Christian scholars, who have a high view of the New Testament as 'scripture', but who
are genuinely doubtful regarding the authorship of a number of New Testament writings and who
do not deem it to be inerrant.

Conservative Christians on the authorship of some New Testament writings

Here we will offer a quick snapshot, a survey, of conservative scholarly doubts over the
traditional authorship claims of various New Testament writings as well as only partial
acceptance of certain traditional authorship claims. This is to demonstrate that there are
committed conservative Christians who have reached such conclusions and not just rabid
'sceptics' as Wood would have us imagine.
Most frequently, within conservative scholarship doubts are raised over the authorship of
Matthew, John, occasionally Mark, Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, occasionally James and Jude,
while the Johannine Epistles and Hebrews are usually considered to be anonymous. This can be
seen in the following quick survey of conservative discussion on the authorship of these writings:
The late Bruce Metzger made it clear in his apologetic introduction, The New Testament, it's
background, growth, and content, 1985, 2nd edition, enlarged, Abingdon Press Nashville, p.
97 that the apostle Matthew can "scarcely be the final author" of the gospel attributed to
him. Regarding the fourth gospel, even though the conclusion that the author was John the son
of Zebedee was "early and widespread", Metzger stated that "it is clear that others were also
involved in its composition and authentication." Metzger concluded: "No simple solution to
the problem of authorship is possible, but it is probable that the fourth Gospel preserves
Palestinian reminiscences of Jesus' ministry." (p. 98). Metzger wrote (pp. 96-97):
Actually not much is known about these matters [the identity of the evangelists and
the date of composition of each Gospel]. The text itself of each Gospel is
anonymous and its title represents what later tradition had to say about the identity of the
author. Of course the probabilities are that such traditions contain at least a substantial
hint as to the identity of the evangelist. Sometimes, however, internal considerations are
such as to cast doubt upon the full accuracy of the later tradition.
Metzger had this to say about the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (pp. 238-239):
.there are features about these letters which make it difficult to attribute them to the
apostle Paul, and most scholars believe that they either were written by an
amanuensis to whom Paul gave great freedom in their composition, or, more
probably, where drawn up near the end of the first century by a devoted follower of
Paul, who utilized several shorter letters of the apostle which otherwise would have been
lost.
Metzger was quicker to dismiss the Petrine authorship of II Peter (pp. 258-259):
Although the author of this letter calls himself "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of
Jesus Christ" (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of
Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modern
scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author of the early second century
who wrote in Peter's name.
Unlike the style of I Peter, which is written in fluent koine Greek, the style of II Peter is
almost pseudo-literary. The wording is unusual, artificial, and often obscure; it is the one
book in the New Testament which gains by translation. Though some have suggested that

the marked difference in style between the two letters might be accounted for by
supposing them to be the work of different amanuenses, several passages of II Peter
point to a date long after Peter's lifetime. Thus, the section dealing with the delay of
the second coming of Christ (3:3-4) presupposes that the first generation of
Christians-to which Peter belonged-had passed away. Furthermore, the letters of Paul,
it appears, have not only been collected but are referred to as "scripture" (3:16), a term
that was not applied to them until some considerable time after the apostle's
death. The second chapter of II Peter embodies most of the little letter of Jude, which
probably dates from the latter part of the first century. Moreover, II Peter is not
definitely referred to by early church writers until the third century, when Origen
speaks of its disputed authenticity. In the light of such internal and external
evidence one must conclude that II Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by
an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give
his letter greater authority.
The letter is a general one addressed to all Christians in all places (1:1). An analysis of
the contents shows that the author had two main purposes in writing: (a) to counteract the
teaching of false prophets and heretics, and (b) to strengthen the faith of Christians in the
second coming of Christ and make them living accordingly.
Regarding the authorship of Hebrews Metzger wrote (p. 248):
In addition to Paul many other guesses have been made about the author of the
letter . [Barnabas, Apollos, Luke, Aquila, Priscilla] . There is no compelling proof for
any of these, and the only sure conclusion about the authorship of the letter is that it
was not written by Paul.
In the generally conservative introduction to the early Christian writings, approved by the
conservative evangelical scholar (and dedicated to the conservative scholar Craig A. Evans), Lee
Martin McDonald and Stanley E. Porter(Early Christianity And Its Sacred Literature, 2000,
Hendrickson Publishers) defend the traditional authorship of Mark's gospel, concluding that
Mark is based on oral traditions as well as reminiscences coming from Peter. They write (p.
287):
"...we are then confronted with the difficult problem of trying to decipher which is
the testimony of Peter and which are layers of tradition on top of it ..."
Lucan authorship of the third gospel and Acts is accepted with some reservations (p. 295):
"We are inclined to accept Lucan authorship, but not without some reservation ..."
Traditional authorship of Matthew, on the other hand, is dismissed. They conclude as follows on
the authorship of Matthew (p. 299):
Perhaps all that can be said about the author of this Gospel is that he was a Jewish
Christian, seemingly more familiar than the other evangelists with the geography of
Palestine, and possibly, on this basis, a teacher in the church.

As for the fourth gospel, we are told (p. 306):

Solving the problem of authorship does not appear to be a possibility for biblical
scholars today.
McDonald and Porter reach the following conclusion after discussing the authorship of the
Johannine epistles (p. 550):
These may be tempting propositions, but none of them can be definitely proved, since
the ascription in the Johannine Letters is only to the "elder," leaving the identification
uncertain and the work formally anonymous. As noted above, the traditional view that
the author of 2 and 3 John is John the disciple or apostle, the author of 1 John and the
Gospel, is not directly supported by the text. There is certainly some linkage of 2 and 3
John to 1 John in vocabulary and themes . These parallels may well show that the books
issued from a similar context, but they cannot establish authorship.
After a detailed discussion on the authorship of Hebrews, they conclude (p. 521):
As stated above, none of these proposals or any others have proved conclusive
regarding the authorship of Hebrews. The book is anonymous, and authorship will
probably stay unknown barring further discoveries. As Origen finally concludes
about the authorship of Hebrews, "God only knows the truth".
For Martin Hengel it is 'probable' that the author of the gospel of Mark 'really was a companion
and interpreter of Peter.' (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ: An
Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, 2000, SCM Press, p. 79,
also p. 80), but as for the origin of the gospel of Matthew, he writes (p. 77):
A further reason why the First Gospel established itself so quickly was its allegedly direct
apostolic origin. It was the first to make this claim. The unknown Jewish-Christian
author, who at the same time was a member of the mainstream church, was presumably
prompted to this by his by his knowledge of an old Aramaic collection of sayings of Jesus
which was known under the name of Matthew. This put him at the head of all four
evangelists and, as was later the case with John, gave him a greater authority than his
forerunners Mark and Luke, who were regarded only as disciples of the apostles.
Hengel believes that 'in all probability' the unknown Jewish-Christian teacher circulated his work
as the 'Gospel of Matthew' from the borders of Syria/Palestine (Ibid).
According to the conservative scholar Michael Green:
We do not know who wrote the Gospel [of Matthew]. Like all the others, it is
anonymous...
... [Second-century writers] do tell us who wrote them, and they may or may not have
been right. In the case of Matthew, it is not at all easy to know whether they were
right, because there is a major contradiction in the evidence. The external evidence

points uniformly in one direction, the internal in another. (The Message of Matthew:
The Kingdom of Heaven, 2001, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 19)
Green is inclined (p. 24) towards the following hypothesis (pp. 22-23):
... the apostle Matthew may have written the sayings collection often called Q ...
Matthew, the tax collector, had the skills and the proximity to Jesus. Maybe he did the
Christian church the marvellous service of collecting and writing down the sayings of his
Master that are now brought to us in the teaching parts of Matthew and Luke. It would
make good sense of Papias' cryptic claim that 'Matthew compiled the logia in the Hebrew
tongue, and each one translated them as he was able.' On this interpretation,
the logia would be not the Gospel as we have it, but the sayings of Jesus, taken down in
Aramaic. People make their own translations of them until they got incorporated in one
of the Greek Gospels later on. But, on this view, Matthew would not have written a
Gospel himself.
Writing in another book, one geared heavily towards apologetics, Green writes:
We do not know exactly who this Matthew was who wrote the gospel. The early
Christians thought that he was Matthew the tax gatherer who became one of Jesus'
disciples, but this is unlikely, if only because he uses Mark's gospel as his basic source.
And it would be very odd for an eyewitness to draw from the record of someone who was
not himself present! Probably the name of Matthew became associated with this gospel
because it embodies a lot of special material he gathered. This was, most likely, the
account of the many sayings of Jesus, absent from Mark, which also appear in Luke.
Matthew, the tax gatherer, had ample opportunity to make a record of the sayings of
Jesus. (Who was Jesus?, 1992, Thomas Nelson, p. 125)
As for the gospel of John, Green states that it was either penned by the apostle John 'or written
by a close disciple of his at John's direction'. (p. 126).
Conservative scholar Leon Morris, in his commentary on Matthew, despite his inclination
towards Matthean authorship, leaves the authorship question open and concludes:
In the last resort it appears that the authorship of this Gospel will remain in dispute. In
my opinion there is more to be said for the apostle Matthew than recent scholarship
commonly allows and more for Matthew than for any other candidate. But the evidence
certainly falls short of complete proof, and in the end divergent views will continue
to be held.50 (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 1992, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 15)
In his commentary on the gospel of John, conservative scholar Colin G. Kruse argues for the
apostle John being the author of the 'original form of the Fourth Gospel' (p. 30). He writes:
To recognize the apostle John as the author of the Fourth Gospel does not mean that the
Gospel in the form we have it today came entirely from his hand. The epilogue
contains the testimony of others to the truthfulness of what the beloved disciple wrote

(21:24), a testimony that appears to have been added by others after the apostle John
died. (The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, 2003, Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 28)
After citing John 21:20-23, Kruse proceeds (Ibid):
Jesus' words to Peter concerning the beloved disciple gave rise to a rumour in the early
church that this disciple would not die before the Lord came again. The need to scotch
such a rumour would have become pressing if the beloved disciple had died, and people's
faith was being unsettled by the apparent failure of Jesus' word to be fulfilled. Hence the
epilogue insists, 'Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that
he remain until I come, what is that to you?"' This suggests that the epilogue was
written by others after the death of the beloved disciple.
Furthermore (pp. 28-29):
It is also possible that they made other editorial additions to the Gospel, including
the testimony to the truthfulness of the beloved disciple found in 19:35. Perhaps the
anonymous self-references made by the author found in the original form of the Gospel,
expressions such as 'the other disciple' or 'another disciple' ... were explained as, or
supplemented by, references to the beloved disciple by later editors of the Gospel. If
this were the case, references to the beloved disciple need not reflect egocentrism on the
part of the original author, but rather the attitude of a later generation of Christians to
him and his special relationship to Jesus.
Therefore, the one(s) responsible for the final form of the fourth gospel is/are unknown.
In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, conservative evangelical scholar Craig
L. Blomberg, while sympathetic towards the traditional authorship, is able to reach only a
'tentative' conclusion on the question of Matthean authorship. He writes:
All of the evidence surveyed so far ("Structure," "Theology," etc.) allows for authorship
by the apostle Matthew, but none of that evidence demands it. (Craig
L. Blomberg, Matthew (New American Commentary), 1992, Broadman Press, p. 43)
After a brief discussion on the authorship of Matthew's gospel, Blomberg writes (p. 44):
When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle
Matthew as authorbut no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church
tradition.
In light of the absence of any contrary/rival ancient authorship tradition, Matthew is reasoned by
Blomberg to be the 'most plausible' (Ibid) choice for author, either of an 'original draft' (Ibid) or
of 'one of its major sources' (Ibid).
Blomberg concludes (Ibid):

But again we present these conclusions tentatively. Little depends on them. Neither
inspiration nor apostolic authority depends on apostolic authorship ... and the church was
capable of preserving accurate information outside of apostolic circles ...

According to the prominent conservative scholar Tom Wright, a favorite of many Christian
apologists:
What do we know about how the Gospels got written? Frustratingly little. We don't
have Matthew's diaries of how he went about collecting and arranging his material. We
don't know where Mark was written. We don't know whether Luke really was, as is often
thought, the companion of Paul. We don't know whether the 'Beloved Disciple', to whom
the Fourth Gospel is ascribed (John 21:24), was really 'John' (in which case, which
'John'?) or someone else. None of the books name their authors; all the traditions
about who wrote which ones are just that, traditions, from later on in the life of the
church (beginning in the first half of the second century, about fifty years after the
Gospels were written). (Tom Wright, The Original Jesus: The Life and Vision of a
Revolutionary, 1997, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 126-127)

John Drane, a prominent evangelical conservative scholar and former student of F. F. Bruce (and
I. H. Marshall), had this to say about the authorship of the gospel of Matthew:
Though some leading scholars continue to believe that the apostle Matthew was the
author, it is worth pointing out that, as with all the other gospels, knowing the exact
identity of the author is not going to be crucial for understanding it. The book itself is
anonymous, and makes no claim at all about its author. We can be fairly certain that it
would be a man, but whether he was associated with the apostle Matthew, and at
what stage or in what way is impossible to say with certainty. (John
Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 2001, First Fortress Press Edition, p. 207)
Regarding the gospel of John, Drane writes (p. 217):
It seems at least possible that the gospel was first written in Palestine, to demonstrate that
'Jesus is the Christ' (20:31), perhaps over against the views of sectarian Jews influenced
by ideas like those of the Qumran community, and then when the same teaching was seen
to be relevant to people elsewhere in the Roman empire, it was revised, with Jewish
customs and expressions being explained, and the prologue and epilogue added. The
advice to church leaders in chapter 21 suggests that the final form of the gospel might
have been directed to a Christian congregation comprised of both Jews and Gentiles
somewhere in the Hellenistic world, perhaps at Ephesus.
Drane concluded (Ibid):

...there is no widely accepted opinion on the author's identity, and the consensus at
this point in time can best be described as an open minded agnosticism, with many
scholars willing to allow some direct connection between John the apostle and the fourth
gospel, though few wish to be more precise than that.
Drane has this to say about the origins of Jude, II Peter and the Johannine epistles (p. 457):
...it might be possible to imagine that Jude and 2 Peter both originate from a group of
Peter's disciples,in much the same way as the Johannine letters appear to have
originated from a 'school' of John's disciples.
Of course we do not know anything about these 'disciples' of Peter and John.
Drane concludes as follows regarding the authorship of Jude and II Peter (Ibid):
Perhaps what we have in both these short letters [Jude and II Peter] is a fresh
application of the teaching of Peter to the concerns and interests of a Hellenistic Jewish
Christian congregation somewhere in Asia Minortowards the end of the first century.
As for the authorship of the epistle of James, Drane considers (p. 415) the evidence for
associating it with James the brother of Jesus as being 'not especially convincing...' However, he
argues that there are 'strong reasons' for placing it in a 'very early period of the church's life'.
Leading conservative evangelical scholar, Ben Witherington III, grants the apostle Matthew
limited contribution in the gospel named after him. He says (p. 78):
It is, however, quite possible that Matthew did contribute the unique material found in
this Gospel and no other, and the book came to be named after its most famous
contributor, which was not uncommon in antiquity. (Ben Witherington III, The New
Testament Story, 2004, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan)
In Witherington's view, there are 'clues' in John 19 and 21 that the 'source of this Gospel material
is the Beloved Disciple, an eyewitness of at least some of the conclusion of Jesus' ministry, and
perhaps more broadly of his Judean ministry.' (p. 82). Witherington writes (Ibid):
John 21:24 says that the Beloved Disciple is the one who testifies to at least some of the
Gospel happenings and indeed wrote them down in some form. His community
vouches for his testimony ("we know his testimony is true"). John 19:35 indicates that he
was present at the death of Jesus, and his selfsame chapter claims only one such man was
present - the Beloved Disciple to whom Jesus bequeathed his mother as he died.
Immediately thereafter Witherington states that it is 'highly unlikely' that John the son of
Zebedee was the author of the fourth gospel. Witherington concludes (p. 83):

All in all it appears that we should think of the Beloved Disciple as the source of much
of this material[raising of Lazarus, healing of the man born blind, episode of the lame
man by the pool, Beloved Disciple reclining with and beside Jesus, Peter having his feet
washed], and that he was a Judean follower of Jesus, not one of the sons of Zebedee, even
though his name may have been John.
This means that we do not know who (or how many) was (were) responsible for the final form of
the fourth gospel and separating the material from the Beloved Disciple and the later unknown
redactor(s) would be difficult, if not impossible.
Even though Witherington believes (p. 68) that a 'reasonable case' can be made for Apollos being
the author of Hebrews, he says 'we cannot be certain, and in any case the author wished to
remain anonymous'.
As for the Pastoral Epistles (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus), Witherington believes that they were
composed 'at or just after the death of Paul' perhaps by Luke or another companion of Paul, who
used as a basis 'authentic notes and/or oral comments from Paul while he was in Mamertine
prison in Rome in the mid-60s'. (pp. 69-70). Witherington continues:
The person who penned these letters did so in his own hand and style ... not
attempting to really imitate the Pauline style, though at times (e.g., in 2 Timothy) we
seem to hear the voice of Paul directly.18'(Witherington comments in a footnote that L. T.
Johnson has made a 'reasonable' case for the dictation of II Timothy by Paul).
Witherington concludes (Ibid):
Furthermore, the more conservative character of some of the ethical advice in these
letters may reflect the fact that the author knows that the apostolic era is about
over, and the Church leaders that were to follow apostles like Paul would not have
the same authority as those who had either known Jesus during his earthly life or
had seen the risen Lord. The letters could be said to help Pauline
coworkers[sic] make the transition to a situation beyond the time of Paul. They are
certainly closer in length and in character to other ancient personal letters than the rest of
the Pauline corpus. It appears that they were written from Rome in the mid to late 60s.
In other words, we do not know who composed the Pastoral Epistles.
Witherington also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter (p. 67):
It is highly probable that 2 Peter is one of the latest if not the latest New Testament
document, written at a time when there had already been for some time a collection
of Paul's letters being used by various churches. I would judge it comes from near
the end of the first century A.D.
[Note: Plenty of conservative scholars have argued that II Peter is a pseudonymous document.
Two further examples: J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on The Epistles of Peter and of

Jude (Black's New Testament Commentaries), 1977, Adam and Charles Black London;
Evangelical scholar Richard Bauckham places II Peter in the late first century: Richard J.
Bauckham, 2 Peter and Jude, (Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 50), 1983, Nelson
Reference.]
Conservative scholar, Richard Bauckham, believes it is unlikely that the apostle Matthew was
responsible for the finished form of the gospel attributed to him:
Since it is not likely that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel as we have it ... the
attribution could either be a pseudepigraphical claim to Matthean authorship or could
reflect a role that the apostle Matthew actually played in the genesis of the Gospel, while
not being its final author. (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The
Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 302)
Elsewhere he writes (p. 112):
...the author of Matthew's Gospel intended to associate the Gospel with the apostle
Matthew but was not himself the apostle Matthew. Matthew himself could have
described his own call without having to take over the way Mark described Levi's call.
[Bauckham also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter. See commentary above]
Like Ben Witherington above, conservative Evangelical scholar, David A. Desilva, also proposes
limited contribution of the apostle Matthew in the gospel attributed to him. He posits that
Matthew did compile an Aramaic sayings source 'recording what Jesus taught in the course of
his own apostolic ministry'. This compilation then became the possession of the communities
founded by Matthew. One of Matthew's disciples then took his material and 'other Jesus sayings
familiar to the community and the Mark's Gospel, and fashioned a presentation of Jesus'
life and instruction more complete than any of the sources on their own.' (p. 235). Desilva
proceeds:
Because Matthew stood behind one of these sources, indeed the source that made this
Gospel distinctive, it would be quite natural for his name to continue to stand behind the
finished product as author and, more importantly for the early church, authenticator of
that tradition.4 (David A. Desilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts,
Methods and Ministry Formation, 2004, InterVarsity Press, pp. 235-236)
Hence the final product is the work of an unknown supposed disciple of Matthew.
Desilva denies the identification of the 'Beloved Disciple' with John the son of Zebedee. He
argues that rather than being the author of the Gospel of John as we have it now,
The Beloved Disciple emerges, then, as the source of the tradition and probably its chief
interpreter, and in that sense deserves the title "Evangelist", but he is not the final
author. (p. 392).

In Desilva's view:
Lazarus may or may not have been the Beloved Disciple, but internal evidence points to
him more plausibly than to the son of Zebedee, who may indeed play a very minor role in
this Gospel. (p. 393)
On the authorship of the Johannine epistles, Desilva says that (p. 453) 'it seems much more
probable that the author of the epistles did not also write the Fourth Gospel, although he may
well have had a hand in editing it ...' Desilva goes on to say (p. 454):
Ultimately, then, all we can say is that the author was a respected teacher and leader
within the circle of communities that ultimately drew their inspiration from the Beloved
Disciple.19
Regarding the authorship of the gospel of Mark, Desilva says (p. 195) that many scholars are
'justifiably reluctant' in accepting Papias' testimony given the inaccuracies in his testimony
regarding Matthew's gospel, even though 'it is also impossible to say definitely that the
attribution is wrong...' He then avoids a detailed discussion by saying(p. 196):
What is certain is that resolving the matter of authorship does not enhance our reading of
the Gospel, and leaving the matter open does not detract from it. These four Gospels
remain the Word of God and the churches' witness to the person of Christ and pattern of
discipleship irrespective of claims about authorship. The texts, not the titles, are "word of
God" to the churches.
Desilva also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter (p. 878):
In 2 Peter an anonymous Christian leader has sought to preserve and defend the
apostolic message for a new generation. 13 In the voice of Peter, this author defends
the apostolic teaching he has received against rival teachers who promote their own
innovations and threaten the churches' hold on the heritage that Peter and his peers
bequeathed to them.
The authorship of Hebrews is described by Desilva as follows (p. 776):
The anonymous letter to the "Hebrews" provides the interpreter with neither the
identity of the author nor that of the recipients. We do not know when it was written,
and the location of both author and recipientsremains unclear.
L. Morris and Donald W. Burdick, in their commentary on Hebrews and James, conclude that the
author of Hebrews cannot be identified:
In the end we must agree that we have no certain evidence about the authorship of
Hebrews. Who wrote it remains unknown to us. We can scarcely improve on the
words of Origen's conclusion, that "who wrote the Epistle, God only knows the
truth"... (Leon Morris, Donald W. Burdick, Hebrew/James (The Expositor's Bible

Commentary with the New International Version), 1996, Zondervan Publishing

House, p. 7)
Regarding Hebrews, Wood boasted, 'I have a good idea who wrote that'. Compare this with the
above conservative verdicts, but also with the conclusion reached by the conservative
scholar, Donald Guthrie, the author of perhaps the most distinguished conservative introduction
to the New Testament, who had this to say after examining in detail the various authorship
hypotheses pertaining to Hebrews:
In the light of the preceding discussion, 1 an open verdict is clearly the safest
course and in this the opinion of Origen can hardly be improved upon. It may not appeal
to the mind to admit that a thinker of so profound a type should remain anonymous and
yet, as A Nairne pointed out, the precision of a name would not much illuminate the
background.2 Of greater importance is the situation which the epistle was intended to
answer. (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Fourth Edition (revised),
1990, InterVarsity Press, p. 682)
On the epistle of James, conservative evangelical scholar, Arthur G. Patzia, finds 'attractive' the
reconstruction according to which while 'much' of the material within James comes from the
'mid-forties', it circulated for 'a number of years before being put into its current form'. Patzia
proceeds:
At some point an editor collected the sayings and discourses of James and circulated
them as a general letter. The literary style, according to one commentator, is clearly "oral
discourse, like the Greek diatribe, the synagogue homily, or a sermon." 20 (Arthur G.
Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon, 1995,
InterVarsity Press, p. 96)
Therefore, James is not responsible for the finished form of the epistle and the identity of the
proposed 'editor' is obviously unknown.
Patzia also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter and concludes (pp. 94-95):
Ralph Martin's suggestion that a disciple from the Petrine circle "has been at work in
assembling and publishing, in his master's name, a testament of that teaching in response
to the pressing needs in the church" seems a reasonable solution to the questions of
composition.

The complex nature of the authorship of the Johannine literature is explained by Patzia as
follows (p. 98):

Some scholars confidently affirm that the apostle John is the author of all the literature
attributed to him and that it follows chronologically the sequence found in the New
Testament. Others believe that an editor(s) from within the Johannine community utilized
and reinterpreted traditions that originally came from the beloved disciple. In this case,
the literature probably attained its final form in Ephesus some time after John's death near
the end of the first century.29
Writing in another book, Patzia has this to say about the authorship of Hebrews:
Even though scholars continue to debate the authorship, date and destination of
Hebrews, virtually everyone admits that it is an anonymous letter written either
from Alexandria, Jerusalem or Rome. (The Emergence of the Church: Context,
Growth, Leadership & Worship, 2001, InterVarsity Press, p. 137)
Leading conservative scholar I. H. Marshall denies the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral
Epistles and concludes:
. the PE belong to the period shortly after the death of Paul. They, especially 2 Tim, are
based on authentic Pauline materials whose extent cannot now be traced precisely, and
they may well have been produced in a group which included Timothy and Titus
themselves. The stimulus came from the existence of the authentic letter behind 2 Tim,
which was already beginning to face up to the problems of the opposition, and led to the
composition of 1 Tim and Tit to deal more explicitly and fully with the problems caused
by opposition and heresy in Ephesus and Crete. The letters were intended to give Pauline
backing to Timothy and Titus . They are examples not of pseudonymity but of
allonymity. Their composition was accordingly in no sense deceptive, in that it was
known that these were fresh formulations of Pauline teaching to take account of the
changing situation. Nevertheless, with the passage of time the origins of the letters were
forgotten and they were assumed to be from Paul himself. (I. H. Marshall, A Critical
And Exegetical Commentary On The Pastoral Epistles, 2004, T & T Clarke, p. 92)
Regarding II Peter, Marshall writes in another book:
Until fresh arguments are brought forward, it therefore seems wisest to admit that we
do not know who wrote this letter but to recognize that it claims to stand in the tradition
associated with Peter.1 This means that for practical purposes we have yet another, semiindependent voice in the chorus of New Testament theology. (I. H. Marshall, New
Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel, 2004, InterVarsity Press, p. 670)
Conservative Christian scholar Mark D. Roberts, writing in his apologetic tract states:
So did the Gospel writers know Jesus personally? Mark and Luke did not. Matthew and
John might have, but we can't be positive. Yet the reliability of the New Testament
Gospels does not depend on who wrote them so much as on the nature and purpose of the
writings themselves. (Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 2007, Crossway Books, p. 49)

According to Roberts (Ibid), 'it is possible' that the writers of Matthew and John 'were
eyewitnesses of Jesus himself'. He concludes (Ibid):
There was a time when critical scholars seemed to discard this possibility energetically,
almost glibly. But in recent years many have come to believe that the first and fourth
Gospels reflect the memory and the perspective of Jesus' own disciples, both Matthew
and John (or another Beloved Disciple, at any rate).Matthew and John may not have
been the ones who finally put pen to papyrus, but they, their memory, and their
authority stand behind the Gospels that bear their names.
This means that the ones responsible for the final form of Matthew and John, as we know them
now, remain unknown.

Conclusion
Above we have cited and referred to a number of conservative evangelical scholars who regard
various New Testament documents to be either anonymous or pseudonymous or partially accept
certain authorship claims/traditions. Let it be made clear that our argument is not that the above
scholars are right (or wrong) in their conclusions. Our aim was only to demonstrate that a variety
of conservative scholars, all of whom are committed Christians with no axe to grind and who
have no reason for being 'sceptical for the sake of being sceptical', have concluded - irrespective
of the merits of their arguments - that there are anonymous and pseudonymous writings within
the New Testament. They do not share Wood's startling view that with the exception of Hebrews
- regarding the authorship of which Wood has a 'good idea'- 'we know who wrote every book of
the New Testament.' On the contrary, there continues to be widespread disagreement and dispute
among scholars on the authorship of a number of New Testament documents and widespread
agreement and also consensus on the rejection of some traditional authorship claims for a
number of New Testament writings.
Nor is it our argument that all conservative scholars share the above conclusions in totality.
There are many conservative scholars who regard II Peter to be pseudonymous and some
conservative scholars who endorse Petrine authorship, conservatives who deny Pauline
authorship of the Pastoral Epistles and conservatives who endorse Pauline authorship,
conservatives who regard the apostle Matthew to have authored the gospel under his name in its
finished form and conservatives who completely deny this or accept Matthean authorship only
partially etc. Conservative scholarship comes in various shades and with disagreements.
The interested reader is advised to visit a local library and spend some time going through New
Testament introductions and commentaries authored specifically by conservative scholars, noting
down all instances of their denials of traditional authorship claims. Such an exercise would
undoubtedly substantially increase the length of the preceding section. What we have cited above
is a minor sample of conservative scholarship.

Once we move outside the restricted realm of evangelical conservatism and consider mainstream
and moderate New Testament scholarly views on the authorship question, we note much more
uncertainty pertaining to the authorship of a number of writings (gospels, Pastoral Epistles, II
Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, Petrine Epistles, Johannine Epistles, Jude, James). The
situation becomes overwhelming once we add to this the many writings in the Jewish Bible
where our knowledge about the authors is either completely missing or very limited (and
here too plenty of conservative scholars can be cited!).
In light of the above reality, it was absurd for Wood to proclaim 'we know who wrote every book
of the New Testament.' 'We' most certainly do not know who wrote 'every' book of the New
Testament even if Wood sincerely believes that he personally knows who wrote 'every' book of
the New Testament. There would have been nothing wrong had Wood stated that he
had personally come to conclude that he knew who wrote every book of the New Testament. His
statement, however, conveys the utterly misleading impression as if there are no genuine
scholarly doubts on the authorship of the various New Testament writings. The suggestion, as if
the authorship issue has been long 'settled' among scholars, except for the rabid 'sceptical ones',
is pure falsehood.
A problem equally, if not more, serious besides the authorship question is that of the historical
reliability of the New Testament writings. Here virtually all scholars, whether liberal, moderate,
and conservative, agree that there are errors, mistakes and historically unreliable details within
the New Testament, albeit with continuing disagreements over their range and extent. The view
that the Bible is 'inerrant' in such a way that it contains no conceivable error and mistake is
rejected by all Christians, including conservatives, with the exception of a very few. To present
an example, even though many conservative scholars happen to be more willing to attribute the
fourth gospel, either fully or partially, to a disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him), it is generally
acknowledged that the material therein is the result of later theological reflections, and
interpretations and, therefore, should not be treated as a purely historical document giving us
brute historical details about Jesus. For example, although I. H. Marshall writes,
I see no reason to deny the well-founded belief that this John, the son of Zebedee,
had something to do with the origins of this Gospel. (I. H. Marshall, New Testament
Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel, 2004, InterVarsity Press, p. 579)
Notice the conclusion he reaches after making a detailed comparison of John with the synoptic
gospels (p. 593):
The Synoptic Gospels are probably much close to the ipissima verba of Jesus and to his
teaching about the future, whereas the Johannine literature evidences a much more
developed theology that reflects more fully the insights of early Christians in the
period after the resurrection.
A number of conservative evangelical scholars have reached similar types of conclusions
(sample of such views can be seen here. Or consider Richard Bauckham, who is often touted by
a number of Christian apologists these days on account of one of his book (Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses) even though he does not regard the New Testament as an inerrant source).

It should be clear by now that the legitimate concerns Christians scholars commonly have
pertaining to the authorship of a number of New Testament writings is very different from the
type of massively inflated hyper-scepticism displayed by a few, who offer a blanket dismissal of
all of the historical data in order to deny the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon
him). The two are in no way 'alike' or 'of the same level' and anyone who passes them off as
being 'the same' is not only displaying remarkable ignorance but is also guilty of committing
high deception.
If any Christian desires to deny the historical existence of Muhammed (peace be upon him), then
he/she must be 'consistent' in their level of scepticism when it comes to the historical existence of
Jesus (peace be upon him). If consistency is to be maintained, then such a Christian would first
have to say 'goodbye' to the historical existence of Jesus (peace be upon him) and only then
worry about the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Books mentioned in the Bible that are not part

of the "Today's Bible":

From http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks1.htm:

The Lost Books of the Bible

Books Mentioned, But Not Found, In The Bible
There are twenty-two books mentioned in the Bible, but not included. The variation is
due to possible double mentions using differing names for the same book.
Book of the Covenant
Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and
they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
There are those that believe the Book of the Covenant is found in Exodus chapters 20 through
23. There are no authoritative sources for this text.
Book of the Wars of the Lord
Numbers 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red
sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,
Certain sources believe that this is to be found by drawing text from several Old Testament
books. There are no authoritative sources for this text.
Book of Jasher Here We have the entire book on this site Here
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged
themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in
the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
2 Samuel 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is
written in the book of Jasher.)
The Manner of the Kingdom / Book of Statutes
1 Samuel 10:25 Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book,
and laid it up before the Lord. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.
Book of Samuel the Seer
1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the
book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
Nathan the Prophet
1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the
book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the
book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of
Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

Acts of Solomon
1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they
not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?
Shemaiah the Prophet
2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of
Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars
between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.
Prophecy of Abijah
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the
book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of
Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
Story of Prophet Iddo
2 Chronicles 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written
in the story of the prophet Iddo.
Visions of Iddo the Seer
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the
book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of
Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

Iddo Genealogies
2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in
the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And
there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.
Book of Jehu
2 Chronicles 20:34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are
written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of
Israel.
Sayings of the Seers Here
2 Chronicles 33:19 His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sin, and his
trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images,
before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.

Book of Enoch Here

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the
Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Book of Gad the Seer
1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in
the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the
seer,

Epistle to Corinth Here

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Epistle to the Ephesians (Missing)
Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in
few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of
Christ)

Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians (Missing)

Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the
church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Nazarene Prophecy Source
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene
Acts of Uziah
2 Chronicles 26:22 Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the
son of Amoz, write.
The Annals of King David
1 Chronicles 27:24 Joab son of Zeruiah began to count the men but did not finish. Wrath came
on Israel on account of this numbering, and the number was not entered in the book of the
annals of King David.

Jude, the Missing Epistle

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should
earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

The following information was sent to me by brother Ibrahim Wilson; may Allah
Almighty always be pleased with him.
DOES THE QURAN HOLD IN VALIDITY IN STATING THAT THE TORAH WAS
LOST OR CORRUPTED?
I have been reading with interest the last few exchanges regarding the reading of
Jeremiah 8:8.
JEREMIAH 8:8
"How can you say,We are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us'? But, behold, the

false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie,"

Note: ( Whenever you see that term 'law of the Lord' the Hebrew word is Torah.)
To me with all due respect to my Christian brethern I think what is stated is crystal
clear. This will aslo hope to explain insh'Allah why Jesus a.s was always so hard on
the SCRIBES!
I think for those who don't believe that the Torah was lost to posterity at one time
would do good to read the following insh'Allah.
2 KINGS 22:8
"And Hiil-kiah, the high priest,said unto Shaphan, the scribe, I have found the book of
the law in the house of the Lord. And Hil-kiah gave the book to Sha phan, and he read
it."
"The accession of Josiah and his eagerness to restore the worship of Jehovah led to the
renovation of the Temple, and in the course of this, B.C. 621, the book of
Deuteronomy was discovered. The priest took it to the king, who joyfully welcomed it
and set about putting its program of religious reformation into effect. The dramatic
story is told in 2 Kings 22 and 23. Josiah put a stop to the idolatrous practices of the
people,..." (Edgar J. Goodspeed 'How came the Bible?' pgs22-23)
The Holy Quran is not the only book claiming that some previous scripture was lost!
The Bible does, on occasion, mention books now lost to posterity.
EXAMPLES:
NUMBERS 21:14
"Wherefore it is said in the BOOK OF THE WARS OF THE LORD, What He did in
the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon..."
Has any one during an Archeological dig(to prove the Bible) found this little gem?
JOSHUA10:13
"...Is this not written in the BOOK OF JASHER?"
Does any one know where this book is?
I KINGS 11:41
"And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are not
written in the BOOK OF THE ACTS OF SOLOMON?"

Could someone let me know where this book is?

1 CHRONICLES 29:29
"Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written a BOOK OF
SAMUEL THE SEER, and in the BOOK OF NATHAN THE PROPHET, and in the
BOOK OF GAD THE SEER,.."
Does anyone know where I may find these original books?
WHERE ARE THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOOKS?
May Allah Almighty guide us all to the truth. Ameen. May Allah cause us to destroy
our egos. Ameen. May Allah guide us if Christianity be the truth. Ameen. May
Allah guide us if Islam be the truth. Ameen.

Q9- How is Allah telling the Christians and

Jews to rule in accordance with the Bible that is
with them according to Noble Verse 7:157 when
these scriptures were corrupted by the followers

of the religion and could not be found in their

true form?
The Noble Quran came to CONFIRM the Truth that exists in the Bible. Allah
Almighty NEVER claimed that the bible is fully and 100% Divine. Islam is a witness
on the Bible. It filters out the truth from falsehood and corruption in the Bible. The
Noble Quran only recognizes the Bible as a HISTORY BOOK with errors and
man's alteration in it. Anything that agrees 100% with Islam is valid, and anything
else that has even the slightest disagreement with Islam is discarded. This is
elaborated on and proven in good details in this link.
Allah Almighty commanded the Jews and Christians to rule among themselves
according to the Bible only in the social and domestic disputes. This was when Islam
was partial and its Laws were not yet complete. The following Hadith further proves
this:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: "The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and told him that a
man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse.
Allah's Apostle said to them, "What do you find in the Torah (old Testament)
about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?" They replied, (But) we
announce their crime and lash them." Abdullah bin Salam said, "You are telling a lie;
Torah contains the order of Rajm." They brought and opened the Torah and one of
them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and
following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, "Lift your hand." When he lifted his
hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, "Muhammad has told the truth;
the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them
should be stoned to death. ('Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "I saw the man leaning over the
woman to shelter her from the stones." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and
Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 829)"
But after Islam became complete, there was no reason for them to continue following
the Bible: ".....This day those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: Yet
fear them not But fear Me (Allah). This day have I (Allah) perfected your religion
for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your
(complete) religion....(The Noble Quran, 5:3)"

The whole Bible to both the Noble Quran and the Bible itself is corrupted, and Jews,
Christians and Muslims must follow the Noble Quran and Islam to get accurate
Justice. Please visit: What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the
Truth? and Why?
Here is what Noble Verse 7:157 states: "Those who follow the Messenger
[Muhammad], the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own
(scriptures) in the Law and the Gospel for he commands them what is just and forbids
them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good and prohibits them from
what is bad; He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are
upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honor him, help him, and follow the
Light which is sent down with him- it is they who will prosper."
We Muslims believe that Allah Almighty did send the Torah (Old Testament or the
Law) to the Jews, but they then corrupted this Holy Message; "We (Allah) certainly
gave the Book To Moses, but differences arose therein: had it not been That a Word
had gone forth Before from thy Lord, the matter Would have been decided Between
them: but they Are in suspicious doubt Concerning it. (The Noble Quran, 11:110)"
The original Message of the Torah (Old Testament) was still around during
Muhammad's (peace be upon him) time. But because the Jews had so much
controversies, disputes and age-old prejudices among themselves, they ended up
losing the entire original message. Please keep in mind that the Jews were divided
into several tribes before Islam, and those tribes had so much problems. They never
had One True Judaism as many Christians mistakenly believe. That is why the
Jews massacred each others before and brought themselves from 11 tribes to only 2
(Judea and Samara located in what we call today West Bank Palestine) due to all of
the blood shed that took place between them. A total of 9 tribes were completely
wiped out. That is why "differences arose therein....." Allah Almighty promised hell
to those Jews who caused the corruption of the Original Torah; "Know they not Allah
Knoweth what they [the Jews] conceal and what they reveal? And there are among
them [the Jews] illiterates, who know not the Book [the Old Testament], but (see
therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who
write the Book [Old Testament] with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from
Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do
write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:77-79)"

As for the Christians and their Injil (New Testament), we Muslims believe that the
Christians unintentionally had corrupted the Bible because they waited for too long to
document it. Some Christians believe that the Bible was documented 150 years after
Jesus. Others believe it took 300 years. In either case, the gap is too big and no
Christian can guarantee accuracy. That is why you read in their current books and
Gospels things such as "And Jesus said to Matthew....." instead of "And Jesus said to
me [Matthew]...." and so on. Cases similar to this example literally exist in most of
the New Testament of today, where they prove that the New Testament was not even
written by its original authors. It was written by third party people, and their words
are considered today the Word of GOD, which is wrong and sinful. The Christian
sects also believe in different number of Gospels when you compare them to each
others. The number of Books/Gospels in the Roman Catholics Bible for instance is
different from the King James Version Bible, which is different in the number of
Books/Gospels from the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, which is different in the number
of Books/Gospels from the Mormon's Bible, etc... Please visit History of man's
corruption in the Bible for more details. Today, there is no one Bible!.
Allah Almighty warned Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him from the false
practices done by Jews and Christians:
"Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their
form of religion. Say: 'The Guidance of God,-that is the (only) Guidance.' Wert thou to
follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou
find neither Protector nor helper against God. (The Noble Quran, 2:120)"
"They say: 'Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation).' Say
thou: 'Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods
with God.' (The Noble Quran, 2:135)"
"Indeed they reject the truth, those that say "God is Christ, the son of Mary." For
indeed, Christ said, worship God, who is my God and your God. (The Holy Quran,
5:72)"
Trinity today, and the corruption of the Torah (The Law sent to the Jews) to prove that
the Jews are the best people for all times and all places and the denial of Jesus peace
be upon him and the many other false teachings are evidence of the false teachings
and practices of the Christians and the Jews.

In general, we Muslims believe that the current Torah and Injil are mixed between the
true Words of GOD Almighty and man's corruption. We also believe that the Bible
had more truth in it during Muhammad's (peace be upon him) time than what we have
today. That is why Allah Almighty was challenging some of the Jews and the
Christians to refer to their Scriptures back then. Please read my answer to Question
#3 for more details on to why Allah Almighty didn't choose to guard His Message in
the Bible. Also, please visit: What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to
the Truth? and Why?, to get more clear picture on where Muslims stand on the Bible's
accuracy issue.

MY REBUTTAL TO THE
DECEPTION AND FALSEHOOD
PROPAGATED BY
THE CHRISTIAN WEB SITE
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/bible.htm

IMPORTANT ADDITIONS
January 30 and February 2, 2003
You will find at the end, responses to my rebuttal from Silas and Sam Shamoun - a
colleague of Silas, and also my refutations to those responses.

Under the article entitled

MUHAMMAD AND THE BIBLE

by Silas
You shall discover the following sub-titles
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
PART 4

THE BIBLE IS TRUE ACCORDING TO ISLAM

WHAT SCRIPTURES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE HIJAZ?
MUHAMMAD AND THE BIBLE
MUHAMMAD AND THE BIBLE

FALSEHOOD AND DECEPTION

The word "BIBLE" and/or the phrase "THE HOLY BIBLE" or their
Arabic equivalents did not appear in the Qur'an that Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) used to recite in his days. Neither do they appear in the
copies of the Qur'an that the Muslims do recite today. Furthermore, if one was to
do the key-word search for the words BIBLE, OLD TESTAMENT or NEW
TESTAMENT within the majority of the translated ENGLISH TEXTS of the
Glorious Qur'an, the results would be ZERO. In other words, these words or
phrases DO NOT appear in these translated texts of the Qur'an. To claim that
the author of this article - Silas, (which could be a pen name) who uses the
following sub-heading, was in reality not aware of the above mentioned facts, is
to say that the author's work could not be relied upon. To say otherwise, would
be to admit that Silas is the master of DECEPTION.
The noteworthy sub-heading to be found within the article by Silas:
C. THE QURAN STATES THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE

WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE QUR'AN?

The Book of Abraham
In the Qur'an (87 : 19), there appears the mention of "The Book of Abraham".
This "Book of Abraham" does not appear at all within the 66 Books of the

Protestant Bible nor within the 73 Books of the Catholic Bible, in circulation
today.
The Book of Moses
In the Qur'an (5: 44), it is recorded that Allah (S.W.T.) had Himself
Revealed /Bestowed "The Taurat" on Moses (peace be upon him), and therein
was the Guidance and the Light. By its Standard the Jews were judged by their
Prophets.
It is absolutely incorrect or rather a folly to claim that "The Taurat" refers to the
collection of the 39 Books of "The Old Testament". It is an indisputable fact that
this entire collection of 39 Books was not Revealed to Prophet Moses. Similarly, it
is ALSO incorrect to assert that the First Five Books of the Old Testaments
called "The Pentateuch" (lit. "The Five Books"), which are often erroneously
declared as the "Five Books of Moses", were Revealed to Prophet Moses.
The Bible Scholars (mostly Christians and Jews), who have examined The
Pentateuch (Five Books attributed to Moses), have discovered four or more main
sources underlying them.
Here are the Four Recognized Main Contributors or the Main Source
Documents.
1. J = Yahwistic Text. Written by the authors in the time of
David or Solomon.
2. E= Elohistic Text. Written by the author after the disruption of
the old Solomonic Kingdom.
3. D= The work of Deuteronomists. The Text was written in the last
quarter of the 7th and the first quarter of the 6th centuries BCE
4. P= The Priestly Accounts. Written after the Babylonian exile
(586-538 B.C.E.).
Note: In the First Four Books of Moses, the Priestly Writers used both
the "J" and the "E" Texts and also rewrote some materials. The proof
of this is to be found in the textual differences or disagreements that are
found between the REPEATED TWIN NARRATIONS, e.g. The
Sequences of the Two Descriptions of the Creation Story in the Genesis.
(cf. the first story in Genesis 1: 21-31 and the second in Genesis 2: 4-23).
Below is the irrefutable proof that Prophet Moses did not write or dictate "The
Pentateuch". The following historical account that appears in the end part of
"The Pentateuch" and records what did transpire after the death of Moses could
neither be qualified as Revealed by Allah Himself to Prophet Moses nor as The

Book written or dictated by Moses nor as The text written during the lifetime of
Moses.
As seen earlier, the Qur'anic Term "The Taurat" refers specifically to the
Revealed Transcript by Allah Himself to His Prophet Moses and within this
Revealed Transcript was "The Guidance and the Light." A Muslim is asked in
the Qur'an to believe in this "Taurat" and not in everything that is identified or
published as "The Books of Moses" in the Bible. Here are two eye-opening
passages from "The Fifth Book of Moses" which is known as "Deuteronomy":
"Moses was one hundred twenty years old when he died; his sight was
unimpaired and his vigor had not abated. The Israelites wept for Moses in the
plains of Moab thirty days; then the period of mourning for Moses was
ended" Deuteronomy 34: 7-8
"Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord
knew face to face." Deuteronomy 34: 10
The above text upholds the theory of Priestly and other Sources in The
Pentateuch.
The above text can be qualified as the history of Moses written by the historians.
But certainly cannot be declared or qualified as; "The true Taurat that was
revealed or bestowed upon Prophet Moses by the Almighty Allah".
The Injeel/Gospel bestowed on Jesus Christ
In the Qur'an (5: 46), it is recorded that Allah (S.W.T.) had Himself
bestowed"The Injeel / Gospel" on Jesus, the son of Mary (peace be upon
him), and therein was the Guidance and the Light and the confirmation of the
Taurat that came earlier and admonition for those who fear Allah. It is very
important to differentiate between "The Gospel" bestowed on Jesus by
Allahand "The Gospels" according to the Four Apostles of Jesus that are
included in The Bible under The New Testament. The first one is "The Gospel
(Good News) of God" preached by Jesus Christ himself. The second one is "The
Good News of Jesus" written by the four Apostles. Understanding of this
fundamental difference is equally important for the Muslims as well as the
Christians, as such I have written a separate article on this subject. I strongly
suggest you to visit http://www.mostmerciful.com/kofgg.htm. The article goes at
length explaining what the Qur'an has attested as "The Injeel / Gospel". In the
Gospel according to Mark (1: 14), the apostle confirms that Jesus, after his stay
of forty days in the wilderness; "came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of
God". Jesus spoke of "the Kingdom of God". Jesus asked the people to "believe
in The Gospel / Injeel (good news)" that he was preaching to them.

The Book given to David

In the Qur'an (17: 55), it is revealed that Allah (S.W.T.) had Himself given"The
Zabur" (The Psalms) to Prophet David (peace be upon him). In the Old
Testament of the Bible, there are Five Books of Psalms comprising of 150 Psalms.
Out of these 150, a total of 73 Psalms are ascribed to Prophet David; 51 to
anonymous writers, 12 to Asaph or his descendants; 9 to the sons of Korah
(temple assistants); 2 to King Solomon and one each to Heman, Ethan (a
musician) and Prophet Moses.
The Books sent to the earlier Prophets
The Glorious Qur'an reveals:
Say ye: "We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham,
Ismai'l, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that
given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and
another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam)." 2: 136 Translation by
Abdullah Yusuf Ali
In the Bible there are no books written by or ascribed to the prophets
Abraham (Ibrahim), Ishmael (Isma'il), Isaac (Is-haq) and/or Jacob (Ya'qub).
IS THE "THE TRUTH" OR "ANOTHER DECEIT" BY SILAS?
In his article under the rebuttal, Silas writes the following:
Many Muslims today say the Bible is corrupted. But there is nothing in the
Quran that supports this. There is not one word in the Quran that teaches that
the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians have been perverted by man. Instead,
the opposite is true. The Quran supports the Bible.
Isn't it interesting that the Muslims' Quran has nothing to say about the
corruption of the Scriptures of the largest religion on earth?
READ THE QUR'ANIC VERSES AND YOU BE THE JUDGE...
Allah did aforetime take a Covenant from the Children of Israel and We
appointed twelve captains among them and Allah said: "I am with you: if ye
(but) establish regular prayers practice regular charity believe in My apostles
honor and assist them and loan to Allah a beautiful loan verily I will wipe out
from you your evils and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if
any of you after this resisteth faith he hath truly wandered from the path of
rectitude." 5: 12
But because of their breach of their Covenant We cursed them and made their
hearts grow hard: they change the words from their (right) places and forget a

good part of the Message that was sent them nor wilt thou cease to find them
barring a few ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them and overlook (their
misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. Glorious Qur'an 5: 13
Translation by Yusuf Ali
The changing of "the words from their (right) places" within "the Message that
was sent them", is NOT considered "the corruption of the Scriptures" by Silas!!!
We certainly gave the Book to Moses but differences arose therein:had it not
been that a Word had gone forth before from thy Lord the matter would have
been decided between them: but they are in suspicious doubt concerning
it. Glorious Qur'an 11: 110
Commentaries #1613 and # 1614 by translator Yusuf Ali to 11: 110:
# 1613 Cf. x. 19. Previous revelations are not to be denied or dishonoured
because those who nominally go by them have corrupted and deprived them of
spiritual value by their vain controversies and disputes. It was possible to settle
such disputes under the flag, as it were, of the old Revelations, but Allah's Plan
was to revive and rejuvenate His Message through Islam, amongst a newer and
younger people, unhampered by the burden of age long prejudices.
# 1614 Cf. xi. 62. There is always in human affairs the conflict between the old
and the new, -the worn-out system of our ancestors, and the fresh living spring of
Allah's inspiration fitting in with new times and new surroundings. The
advocates of the former look upon this latter not only with intellectual doubt but
with moral suspicion, as did the People of the Book upon Islam, with its fresh
outlook and vigorous realistic way of looking at things.
The Ark of the Covenant
The so called Fifth Book of Moses - Deuteronomy, records that Prophet Moses
made an Ark of acacia wood and cut two tablets of stone like the ones he had
received on the mountain, while God spoke to him. As God had commanded him
to do, Moses put these two tablets containing the Original Message from God
into the Ark (see Deut. 10: 1-5). Later, the contents of the original Ark were
transferred and sealed into another Ark of wood and gold made by Bezalel of the
tribe of Judah. This Ark served as a holy archive for the safe keeping of the
sacred testimonies, reminders and messages. It also contained a golden jar
having the manna and the rod of high priest Aaron. Before Moses died, he gave a
copy of the "Book of Law" to the Levitical priests with instructions to place that
copy not within the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, but place it beside the
sacred Ark. Moses added;
"...let it remain there as a witness against you. For I know well how rebellious
and stubborn you are. If you already have been so rebellious towards the Lord
while I am still alive among you, how much more after my death!" (Deut. 31: 26-

28).
This Ark of the Covenant was brought by King David to Jerusalem. Today, the
researchers like Mike Sanders believe that the Ark was probably destroyed by
Ramesses III. The original Message of God that was bestowed upon Moses and
written by Moses himself and placed by him in the Ark is no where to be found.
IMPORTANT ADDITIONS
RESPONSES FROM SILAS AND SAM SHAMOUN
MY REFUTATIONS TO THOSE RESPONSES
The combined responses from Silas (the original author) and Sam Shamoun (a
colleague of Silas), is an article twenty-seven pages long and is divided into two
parts. Since much of it is either irrelevant or deviates from the ORIGINAL
CLAIM made by Silas that is under rebuttal, I am only reproducing the essential
and related excerpts. Silas has claimed; "THE QURAN STATES THAT THE
BIBLE IS TRUE". To this false claim I have rightly called a deception. Silas has
now invited his "esteemed" colleague - Sam Shamoun, to play around with the
well established and distinctly defined terminology "THE BIBLE" and to
manipulate the ORIGINAL CLAIM. It is often, within the Divine Plan of Allah,
to expose the deceit from the writings of those who wish to propagate falsehood
in His name. The seekers of Truth may be elated to read how Sam Shamoun
contradicts his colleague. After reading my refutations, if someone feels the need
to read the entire lengthy response, the URLs for both the parts are given at the
end.
Silas writes: My esteemed colleague, Mr. Sam Shamoun, had already written an
analysis of Meherally's "rebuttal." I have only added a few comments to his
work. Hence the reader may see our work switch back and forth from first
person to second, to third. It should not be difficult for the informed reader.
Sam: I choose to call Meherally's response a deception for several reasons. First
in order to call our readers' attention to Meherally's ad hominem slurs. Do note
that Meherally begins his article with the bold claim that Silas' article is a
falsehood and a deception. This is presumably done in order to poison the minds
of Meherally's readers from seriously considering Silas' arguments. Yet, all
Meherally has managed to do throughout his article is to expose his shoddy
scholarship. As I shall shortly demonstrate the only one who is promoting
falsehood and lies is Meherally.
Instead of attacking a person's character and/or using cheap polemical tricks,
Meherally needs to show respect to those whom he opposes. His attacks do

nothing to help his case but only expose his immature and unprofessional
attitude.
(The change of typeface to bold, is mine).
Meherally: I did call the article written by Silas a deception, because the well
established and distinctly defined terms BIBLE or THE HOLY BIBLE do not
appear in the Qur'an. Even this twenty-seven page article has not been able to
substantiate that which is non-existent. Earlier, I have already enumerated that
which has been Revealed by Allah (s.w.t.) in His Book. If, Sam considers my
calling Sisal's article a deception to be "ad hominem slurs", what does he
consider his opening remark that reads: "I choose to call Meherally's response a
deception"?
Silas/Sam have quoted the following passage from my rebuttal
The word "BIBLE" and/or the phrase "THE HOLY BIBLE" or their Arabic
equivalents did not appear in the Qur'an that Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) used to recite in his days. Neither do they appear in the copies of the
Qur'an that the Muslims do recite today. Furthermore, if one was to do the keyword search for the words BIBLE, OLD TESTAMENT or NEW TESTAMENT
within the majority of the translated ENGLISH TEXTS of the Glorious Qur'an,
the results would be ZERO. In other words, these words or phrases DO NOT
appear in these translated texts of the Qur'an. To claim that the author of this
article - Silas, (which could be a pen name) who uses the following sub-heading,
was in reality not aware of the above mentioned facts, is to say that the author's
work could not be relied upon. To say otherwise, would be to admit that Silas is
the master of DECEPTION.
The noteworthy sub-heading to be found within the article by Silas:
C. THE QURAN STATES THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE
Silas: Meherally's thrust here is that since the word "Bible" is not found in
English translations of the Quran, then my assertion "THE QURAN STATES
THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE", is false.
At this point, I need to say to Meherally, "Meherally! Before you rebut
anything, please read all of it!!! Otherwise you appear to be a barking dog ora
braying donkey." If Meherally would have bothered to read all of my article, he
would have found where I address his question. Meherally is not the first person
to make such an objection. Consequently, I specifically addressed this in Section
D, Muslim objection #2. So much time would be saved if people bothered to read,

and then be able to understand what they read.

(The change of typeface to bold, is mine).
Meherally: If Silas had indeed addressed this question earlier, as he claims so
vehemently, why has Silas not reproduced that text here and made the short end
of this dialogue? Why has Silas invited an "esteemed writer" his aid? And, why
this helper has written such a LENGTHY RESPONSE to prove that which has
already been proven by Silas? The readers will find out, once they finish reading
my entire response (part of which is yet under editing and typing) how baseless is
the claim: "THE QURAN STATES THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE".
Surprisingly, Silas has completely overlooked and disregarded the advise given
by his "esteemed colleague" of showing respect to those whom you oppose and
introduced disrespectful and derogatory phrases as "a barking dog" and "a
braying donkey". I wish to invite the attention of Silas - a follower of Jesus, to the
following warning by Christ;"...and if you say, 'You Ra'cah', (a derogatory
personal remark to another person), you will be liable to the fire of
Hell." Matthew 5 : 22.
Sam:
Further, Meherally has evidently not even bothered to thoroughly read the
Quran. The claim that "Bible", "Holy Bible" or their Arabic equivalents do not
appear in the Quran is blatantly false. The term Bible comes from the Greek
word Biblos, and simply means "Book." Instead of expecting to find Bible in the
Arabic Quran we should see if whether the Quran refers to the Holy Bible by its
Arabic equivalent, namely Kitab meaning Book. This isprecisely what we find
the Quran calling the previous revelation:
(The change of typeface to bold, is mine).
Meherally: Please make a note that Sam has claimed; the term BIBLE simply
means "BOOK" (singular). Now examine what his colleague Silas has claimed
for the same term BIBLE. Here is an excerpt from the original writings by Silas:
Yet, if one were to trace the word Bible back to the Greek,
one would discover that the word itself comes from the term biblia,
meaning "books."
(The change of ink color to Red and the typeface, are mine).
Silas had argued in his original article that the word BIBLE
means "books".However, the Arabic word "KITAB" -- that appeared in the
Qur'anic Verse that Silas had quoted underneath -- was in its SINGULAR form.
So, he now attempts to change that form Plural to Singular by introducing one
more falsehood, as you will soon discover. On the other hand, Sam Shamoun

simply changed the Greek word for the BIBLE to its singular form and then
make it tally it with the Qur'anic term "KITAB". An ingenious method of
changing the form of the crucial word in Greek, and then try to prove: "THE
BIBLE" = "THE BOOK" = "THE KITAB".
A helper invited by Silas to help, proves that Silas was wrong in his derivation.
However, the Encyclopedia Britannia ( 1953) records; The English word "Bible"
is derived through Mediaeval Latin from the Greek, which simply means "the
books." The above published prestigious record proves Sam to be wrong and
thus his attempt falls flat on its face unless Sam claims to be more
knowledgeable!!!
Silas continues:
Hence, in time the collection became classified as the Book due to the fact that
although the Bible consisted of 66 individual writings, the author was one,the
Holy Spirit, having one unifying theme: the advent of God's Messiah-Deliverer.
Not surprisingly, we find the Quran mentioning the Book (Arabic- al-Kitab) of
the Jews and Christians:
Meherally:
Silas is shy of using the common term "individual books", and hence he prefers
to write "individual writings", just a casual observation. Silas and Sam both
belong to the "Protestant" Denomination of Christianity that follows a BIBLE
with 66 Books. Have they ruled out all other BIBLES, including the
famous Catholic Bible, which has 73 individual books? Who was the author of
those Seven individual books? IF, the same "one" - the Holy Spirit, why reject
them? IF not, how do you know for sure the 66 books that you read have no such
spurious Book or Books? The history records that the Protestant Sect came into
existence nearly eight centuries after the QUR'AN WAS REVEALED, when it
separated from the Roman Catholic Church. Which BIBLE was the one that was
being read during that long period of eight centuries? My next question for Silas
and Sam is; WHICH SPECIFIC BIBLES, that the Jews and Christians read
today, are for sure have been attested by the QUR'AN with the Revealed Arabic
term "KITAB", and which have been for surerejected???
Let me refresh the claim: "THE QURAN STATES THAT THE BIBLE IS
TRUE".
Silas has claimed; "the author was one, the Holy Spirit." (see above). Again, a
falsehood. The following text from the BIBLE exposes and demonstrate that to
be a blatant falsehood. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians (one of the "66
Books" of the Bible), Paul admits in the opening verse, he is the author of this
entire Letter. And, what he has written in verse 25 and 26 is "his" own opinion :

"Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion
as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the
impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are."
1 Corinthians 7 :25 - 26.
Please visit again. Insha'Allah, more serious refutations will be added.

Further 2nd Addition on February 2nd 2003

A typo error:
In the earlier page, a sentence that read:
IF, the same "one" - the Holy Spirit, was reject them?"
has now been corrected to read:
IF, the same "one" - the Holy Spirit, why reject them?"
My apologies.
-----Here are further Refutations as promised:
The following is a text reproduced from my earlier Rebuttal:
The Book of Moses
In the Qur'an (5: 44), it is recorded that Allah (S.W.T.) had Himself Revealed /
Bestowed "The Taurat" on Moses (peace be upon him), and therein was the
Guidance and the Light. By its Standard the Jews were judged by their
Prophets.
It is absolutely incorrect or rather a folly to claim that "The Taurat" refers to the
collection of the 39 Books of "The Old Testament". It is an indisputable fact that
this entire collection of 39 Books was not Revealed to Prophet Moses. Similarly, it
is ALSO incorrect to assert that the First Five Books of the Old Testaments
called "The Pentateuch" (lit. "The Five Books"), which are often erroneously
declared as the "Five Books of Moses", were Revealed to Prophet Moses.
Some text has been deleted.
The entire text does appear in the earlier portion. Please continue reading...
Below is the irrefutable proof that Prophet Moses did not write or dictate "The
Pentateuch". The following historical account that appears in the end part of
"The Pentateuch" and records what did transpire after the death of Moses could
neither be qualified as Revealed by Allah Himself to Prophet Moses nor as The
Book written or dictated by Moses nor as The text written during the lifetime of
Moses.

As seen earlier, the Qur'anic Term "The Taurat" refers specifically to the
Revealed Transcript by Allah Himself to His Prophet Moses and within this
Revealed Transcript was "The Guidance and the Light." A Muslim is asked in
the Qur'an to believe in this "Taurat" and not in everything that is identified or
published as "The Books of Moses" in the Bible. Here are two eye-opening
passages from "The Fifth Book of Moses" which is known as "Deuteronomy":
"Moses was one hundred twenty years old when he died; his sight was
unimpaired and his vigor had not abated. The Israelites wept for Moses in the
plains of Moab thirty days; then the period of mourning for Moses was ended"
Deuteronomy 34: 7-8
"Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord
knew face to face." Deuteronomy 34: 10
The above text upholds the theory of Priestly and other Sources in The
Pentateuch.
The above text can be qualified as the history of Moses written by the
historians.
But certainly cannot be declared or qualified as; "The true Taurat that was
revealed or bestowed upon Prophet Moses by the Almighty Allah".
-- The end of reproduction -Sam's response to the above:
Fourth, Meherally thinks that Deuteronomy 34 somehow refutes Mosaic
authorship. Yet this only exposes Meherally's hypocrisy. Meherally claims and
believes that Deuteronomy contains two prophecies about Muhammad,
Deuteronomy 18:15-18, 33:2:
8. Finally, several millenniums before Christ Jesus spoke for the coming of "another
paraclete", the making of ISLAM as a Great Nation was already in GOD'S MASTER
PLAN and foretold in the Holy Bible. God the Almighty had declared His Master Plan
to His prophets Abraham, MOSES, Solomon, Isaiah and Habakkuk. Here are few
verses from the Old and New Testaments. Genesis 17: 20; 21: 13-1718; DEUTERONOMY 18: 15-18 AND IN PARTICULAR 33:2;Songs of Solomon
5: 10 to 16; Isaiah 42: 9 to 17 and Habakkuk 3: 3.
John 14: 16/26; 15: 26; 16: 7 to 15; 1 John 2: 1 and 1 John 4: 6. ( Source )
And:

Nearly TWENTY CENTURIES before the birth of prophet Muhammad AND A

SHORT WHILE BEFORE HIS OWN DEATH, PROPHET MOSESspeaking on
the subject of the Holy One from mount Paran, said to his people: (Source )
If Meherally believes that Moses predicted the coming of his prophet twenty centuries
before Muhammad's birth, then on what basis does Meherally use Deuteronomy 34 to
reject Mosaic authorship? It seems to have never occurred to Meherally that just as it
was possible for God to reveal to Moses the advent of a prophet that came thousands
of years later, God was also able to reveal to Moses the manner of his death and have
him record it for future generations!
Fifth, since Meherally accepts the Documentary Hypothesis and since this hypothesis
rejects Mosaic authorship for the great bulk of the Pentateuch, how then does
Meherally know that Deuteronomy 18 and 33 are genuine prophecies by Moses? On
what basis does he accept Deuteronomy 18 and 33 as genuine while rejecting chapter
34?
Interestingly, Meherally contradicts himself since elsewhere he calls Deuteronomy
"the fifth book of Moses":
The Message that Jesus had brought was the same as declared IN THE FIFTH
BOOK OF MOSES, called Deuteronomy, which is: "Thou shalt have no other gods
before Me." "Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the
Lord thy God am a jealous God..." ( Source )
So which is it? Is Deuteronomy the fifth book of Moses or not? Meherally seemingly
wants to have his cake and eat it too and yet he can't have it both ways. Sadly, such
shoddy scholarship and deceptive methodology is a common feature of Meherally's
articles.
(The underlines are mine.)
--- end of Sam's respose -Meherally:
Please read carefully the opening sentence from Sam's response. It reads:
Fourth, Meherally thinks that Deuteronomy 34 somehow refutes Mosaic authorship.
I have for sure refuted the MOSAIC authorship for CHAPTER
NUMBER34, which happens to be the LAST CHAPTER of that Book. To
uphold and support my refutation I have also quoted VERSES 7 - 8 and Verse 10
fromChapter 34.

Now, please read once again the above quoted misleading Response of Sam.
He refers to my OTHER WORKS as the Source Documents, that deal
withCHAPTERS 18 and 33 of Deuteronomy. Sam, the "esteemed writer" boasts
that he has EXPOSED "Meherally's hypocrisy". Need I spell out what has been in
reality exposed from the above Response of Sam, who has not quoted anything
from chapter 34? Sam, should read again my Sources and demonstrate where
have I rejected the entire Book of Deuteronomy to prove "Meherally's
hypocrisy". Let me, repeat what I had written earlier: "It is often, within the
Divine Plan of Allah, to expose the deceit from the writings of those who wish to
propagate falsehood in His name." Sam writes in his response and I quote:
If Meherally believes that Moses predicted the coming of his prophet twenty centuries
before Muhammad's birth, then on what basis does Meherally use Deuteronomy 34 to
reject Mosaic authorship? It seems to have never occurred to Meherally that just as it
was possible for God to reveal to Moses the advent of a prophet that came thousands
of years later, God was also able to reveal to Moses the manner of his death and have
him record it for future generations!
(The underlines are mine.)
Sam is trying to change the text of a post Moses Historical Record into a
Prophecy. Once again this ingenious scheme falls flat on its face, before the
following quote.
Here is a text copied from the NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION (NRSV)
of the Bible, that appears under the subheading of VITAL STATISTIC:
DEUTERONOMY
AUTHOR:
Moses (except for the final summary which was probably written by
Joshua after Moses' death).
Note: Joshua the son of Nun is the author of the next Book in the O/T.
I have a suggestion for Sam, Silas and his Organization:
Write to the Editors of NRSV and ask them to amend what they have written...
Here is another passage from Sam's Response:
Interestingly, Meherally contradicts himself since elsewhere he calls Deuteronomy
"the fifth book of Moses":
Meherally:

Is Sam trying to tell his readers that he has never opened the famous King James
Version of the Bible and read the headings of the Books of the Old Testament?
In K.J.V. the title for the first book of the Old Testament reads:
The First Book of Moses, called GENESIS.
And, this style is maintained by K.J.V. for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and the 5th Book.
The title for the fifth book of the Old Testament reads:
The Fifth Book of Moses, called DEUTERONOMY.
In the Glorious Qur'an the Chapter (Sura) Number 69 is called AlHaqqameaning THE REALITY. If Sam was to call that Chapter "The Reality",
can anyone claim that Sam has acknowledged that Chapter to be THE
REALITY (The Truth)?
Sam makes a very serious erroneous claim below and then goes on to make the
unwarranted serious remarks for the Glorious Qur'an:
Finally and even more amazingly, it might come as a complete shock to our readers to
find that the Quran never actually says that the Taurat was given to
Moses.Instead, the Quran says that Allah gave Moses the Book. This means that the
only way for Meherally to know whether the Taurat was given to Moses IS BY
TURNING TO THE HOLY BIBLE! Otherwise, Meherally can never prove from
the Quran itself that the Taurat was given to Moses. This is another indication
that the Quran is an incomplete and incoherent record.
(The under lines and the color changes, are mine)
Meherally:
Insha'Allah, God Willing, I am about to EXPOSE Sam that will not only
SHOCK the readers, but will DISCREDIT him, once and for all the times. What
Sam has claimed is a FALSEHOOD, that none can deny after reading the
following verse that speaks of "AT-TAWRAAT" being revealed to Moses. After
reading the following translations and the transliteration Sam should sincerely
lament and apologize for having written the following falsehood for THE
QUR'AN, I quote:
This is another indication that the Quran is an incomplete and incoherent record.
Here are the translations and transliteration of Verse 5: 44:
Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the
Prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the
priests (judged) by such of Allah's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and
thereunto were they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And barter not

My revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath
revealed: such are disbelievers. Translation by M. M. Pickthall
It was We who revealed the law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light. By its
standard have been judged the Jews by the Prophet who bowed (as in Islam) to
Allah's will by the Rabbis and the doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the
protection of Allah's Book and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not
men but fear Me and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to
judge by
(the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) unbelievers.
Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
Indeed We revealed the Taurat to Moses, in which there is guidance and light: By
its laws, all the Prophets, who were Muslims, judged those who call themselves
Jews and so did the rabbis and jurists of law. They were entrusted the protection
of Allah's Book and they themselves were witnesses. Have no fear of people; fear
Me, and do not sell My revelations for a petty price: those who do not judge by
the law which Allah has revealed, are indeed kafirs (unbelievers).
Translation by F. Malik
'in(na) -naa anzalnaa at- tawraah fe -haa huda(n) wa- nor yah.kum bi- -haa annabeyon 'alladhena aslamo li- 'alladhena haado wa- ar- rabbaaneyon wa- alah.baar bi- maa istuh.fiz.o min kitaab 'allaah wa- kaano calay -hi shuhadaa' falaa takhshaw an- naas wa- ikhshaw -ni wa- laa tashtaro bi- 'aayaat -e
thaman(an) qalel(an) wa- man lam yah.kum bi- maa anzala 'allaah fa- 'olaa'ika
hum al- kaafiron.
Transliteration of Verse 5: 44

Here is the greatest shock:

I had made a reference to this verse number 5: 44 in the very opening of my
Rebuttal's Sub-heading The Book of Moses. Sam did not bother to open the
Qur'an and read that verse before making the accusations.
I could, but I do not wish to repeat what Silas wrote to me about the dogs and
donkeys. He may read it himself, since that applies to him.
THE GOSPELS:
Here is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannia 1953, under the Title BIBLE,
Heading NEW TESTAMENT, Sub-heading TEXTUAL CRITICISM Vol. 3, page
51. This passage gives several examples to demonstrate that the interpolations
within the Gospels are INTENTIONAL. The Gospels that Christians are reading
today have materials from the external sources and hence are corrupted.

In the Gospels, on the other hand, the characteristic variations

areintentional, such as the addition or insertion of whole passages, some of which
must certainly have been supplied from an external source. The longest is the
whole story of the Woman taken in Adultery, inserted between John vii. 52 and
viii. 12; others are a long insertion after Matt. xx. 28 (61 words), the saying about
the Face of the Sky in Matt. xvi. 2-3 (31 words), the story of the Angel and the
Bloody Sweat in Luke xxii. 43-44 (26 words), and many other shorter passages.
No satisfactory paleographical explanation has ever been found for these
variants; they are evidently made on purpose, by persons who had new matter to
insert into the text and felt themselves at liberty to do so. The fact of the
occurrence of these longer Interpolations (as they are usually called) prepares us
to find that very many of the shorter variants are of the same nature, i.e., that
they did not arise through scribal errors but by intentional efforts to improve or
enrich the original.

Further 3rd Addition on February 6th 2003

Meherally:
DEUTERONOMY
Sam wrote in his rebuttal:
It seems to have never occurred to Meherally that just as it was possible for God to
reveal to Moses the advent of a prophet that came thousands of years later, God was
also able to reveal to Moses the manner of his death and have him record it for future
generations!
In my earlier response I had quoted the Vital Statistics for the Book of
Deuteronomy, from the NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION (NRSV). This
Vital Statistics, written by the editors of the Bible acknowledged that Joshua was
probably the author of that historical record and it was recordedafter the death
of Moses. In case Sam Shamoun refuses to accept that Vital Statistic here is my
alternate response from the Biblical Texts. It seems that Sam has either not read
the specific wordings and the language of these prophecies for the advent of a
FUTURE PROPHET that are recorded in CHAPTER 18 and compared them
with the wordings and the language of the PAST EVENTS that are recorded in
CHAPTER 34. Or, Sam is fully aware of those obvious and glaring
differences and is intentionally responding with "esteemed" style of pretentious
hollow arguments.
The opening words of Prophecy No. 1 recorded in Deut. 18: 15 reads:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me...."

The opening words of Prophecy No. 2 recorded in Deut. 18: 18 reads:

"I will raise up from them a prophet like you from among their own people, Iwill
put my words in the mouth of that prophet..."
These prophecies REVEAL the Future Events in their Future Tenses.
Now compare the wordings and language of the following records in Deut. 34:5 8
"Then Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab...
"He was buried in a valley in the land of Moab..."
"The Israelites wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the period
of mourning for Moses was ended."
These historical events are all RECORDED in their Past Tenses.
It is unfortunate that some people argue for the sake of arguing and they never
LEARN THE TRUTH... Jesus rightly said: "The Truth shall make you free...".
THE AUTHOR WAS ONE, THE HOLY SPIRIT
Silas wrote:
Hence, in time the collection became classified as the Book due to the fact that
although the Bible consisted of 66 individual writings, the author was one,the
Holy Spirit, having one unifying theme:
Please read the following TEXT from the 'Book of Isaiah', one of the 66 Books.
The reproductions are from a Bible CD and the Version is the King James
Version:
(KJV) Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord God {is} upon me; because
the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent
me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the
captives, and the opening of the prison to {them that are} bound;
(KJV) Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of
vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Apostle Luke records that Jesus went into a synagogue in Nazareth. He was
given the Scroll of the prophet Isaiah to read. Jesus unrolled the Scroll and read.
Please compare the following TEXT from the 'Gospel of Luke, one of the66
Books.
(KJV) Lk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord {is} upon me, because he hath anointed
me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,

to preach deliverance to the captives,and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at

liberty them that are bruised,
(KJV) Lk 4:19

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

One would EXPECT, Luke to QUOTE here what we had read earlier from the
"Book of Isaiah". But, he ADDED his own text and thus corrupted the Book.
Here are two serious question for Silas:
IF the author was ONE, the Holy Spirit for all the 66 Books, then why the TWO
TEXTS do not tally LINE FOR LINE and WORD FOR WORD? Who wrote the
ADDITIONAL LINE that reads "and recovering of sight to the blind"?
IF Silas is NOT YET READY to change his statement then Silas should disown
the 'Doctrine of Trinity' the foundation of his Christianity. This Innovated
Doctrine teaches that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are ONE. Did God
Err???
Silas claims: "THE QURAN STATES THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE".
By the Grace of Allah, it has been established WITHOUT ANY DOUBT:
"THE BIBLE ESTABLISHES THAT ALL ITS BOOKS ARE NOT TRUE".
Those interested in reading more on the Innovated 'Doctrine of Trinity' may
click:
http://www.mostmerciful.com/trinity.htm
I close with a verse from the Glorious Qur'an:
Then in their wake We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent
after them Jesus the son of Mary and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We
ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But
the
monasticism which they invented for themselves We did not prescribe for them:
(We commanded) only the seeking for the Good pleasure of Allah; but that they
did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed on those among them
who believed their (due) reward but many of them are rebellious transgressors.
Chapter 57, Verse 27
Those interested in reading more on the Gospel bestowed on Jesus, may click:
http://www.mostmerciful.com/kofgg.htm

Here are the two URLs of Sam's response:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible2.htm
Since the above responses deal mostly with the re-narrated Hadeeths and the
works of Ibn Kathir, I suggest the readers to read my two articles on the
subjects:
http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook-sectionone.htm
(Myths & Realities of Hadeeths)
http://www.mostmerciful.com/bukhari--munkar-e-hadeeth.htm (Please read the
end part. It speaks of what has been discovered within the Ibn Kathir's
commentaries).
Akbarally Meherally February 6, 2003

My response to Sam Shamoun's "Muhammad's

Alleged Night Journey to the Jerusalem Temple"
article:
This article is a refutation to Sam Shamoun's article, which is located
at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/nightjourney.htm

He wrote:
Muhammad's Alleged Night Journey to the Jerusalem Temple
Sam Shamoun
According to the Quran, Allah allegedly took Muhammad on a journey from the
Kabah in Mecca to the Temple at Jerusalem:
Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the
Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa), whose precincts We
did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the
One Who heareth and seeth (all things). S. 17:1
The Islamic traditions expand on the theme of Muhammad's travel to the Temple at
Jerusalem, and even describe some of its features. The following is taken from Ibn
Sa'd's Al-Tabaqat Al-KabirVolume I, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A.,
PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. (Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784
Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India):
Muhammad Ibn 'Umar al-Aslami informed us; he said: Usamah Ibn Zayd alLaythi related to me on the authority of 'Amr Ibn Shu'ayb, he on the authority
of his father, he on the authority of his ('Amr's) grand-father; (second chain) he
(Ibn Sa'd) said: Musa Ibn Ya'qub al-Zam'i related to me on the authority of his
father, he on the authority of his (Musa's) grandfather, he on the authority of
Umm Salamah; (third chain) Musa said: Abu al-Aswad related to me on the
authority of 'Urwah, he on the authority of 'Ayishah; (fourth chain) Muhammad
Ibn 'Umar said: Ishaq Ibn Hazim related to me on the authority of Wahb Ibn
Kaysan, he on the authority of Abu Murrah the mawla of 'Aqil, he on the

authority of Umm Hani daughter of Abu Talib (fith chain) he (Ibn Sa'd) said:
'Abd Allah Ibn Ja'far related to me on the authority of Zakariya Ibn 'Amr, he on
the authority of Abu Mulaykah, he on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas and others;
their consolidated narrations are: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him,
was taken by night on the seventeenth night of First Rabi' before Hijrah, and
one year before the blockade in the mountainpass of Abu Talib, to Bayt alMuqaddas. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: I was mounted on
a beast whose size was between a donkey and a mule, with two wings in its
thighs, which came up to its hoofs and were set in them. When I went near it to
ride, it became restive. Thereupon Gabriel placed his hand on its head and said:
O Buraq! are you not ashamed of what you are doing? By Allah no servant of
Allah has ridden you before Muhammad, more honoured in the sight of Allah.
It felt ashamed till it was covered with sweat, and became calm; then I mounted
it. It moved its ears, and the earth shrank to such an extent that its hoofs
(seemed to touch its surface) at the end of the range of our sight. It had a long
back and long ears. Gabriel accompanied me and he never lost touch with me
nor did I till we reached Bayt al-Muqaddas; and al-Buraq reached its halting
place. It was tied there and it was the place where the beasts... of the Prophets
were tied before the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. He (the Prophet)
said: I saw the Prophets who had assembled there for me. I saw Abraham,
Moses and Jesus and, I thought there must be some one to lead them (in
prayers); Gabriel made me go forward till I offered prayers in front of them and
inquired from them (about their mission). They said: We were commissioned
with Unity (of Allah).
Some of them (narrators) said: The Prophet, may Allah bless him, had
disappeared that night, so the members of family of 'Abd al-Muttalib went out
to search him. Al-'Abbas went to Dhu Tuwa and began to shout: O Muhhamad!
O Muhammad! The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: I am here. He
said: O my brother's son! You have worried the people since the (beginning of
the) night, where had you been? He said: I am coming from Bayt al-Muqaddas.
He said: In one night? He said: Yes. He said: Did you experience anything
which was not good? He said: I did not experience anything but good. Umm
Hani said: He was taken on this journey from our house. He slept that night
with us; he offered al-'Isha prayers, and then he slept. When it was pre-dawn
we awoke him (to offer) morning (prayers). He got up and when he offered
morning prayers he said: O Umm Hani! I offered al'Isha prayers with you as
you witnessed, then I reached Bayt Al-Muqaddas and offered prayers there;
then I offered morning prayers before you. After this he got up to go out; I said
to him: Do not relate this to the people because they will belie you and harm
you. He said: By Allah I shall relate to them and inform them. They wondered

at it and said: We have never heard a thing like this. The Apostle of Allah, may
Allah bless him, said to Gabriel; O Gabriel! my people will not confirm it. He
said: Abu Bakr will testify to it; and he is al-Siddiq. The narrator added: Many
people who had embraced Islam and offered prayers went astray. (The Prophet
continued,) I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its
signs. Some of them said: HOW MANY DOORS ARE THERE IN THAT
MOSQUE? I HAD NOT COUNTED THEM SO I BEGAN TO LOOK AT
IT AND COUNTED THEM ONE BY ONE AND GAVE THEM
INFORMATION CONCERNING THEM. I also gave information about
their caravan which was on the way and its signs. They found them as I had
related. Allah, the Almighty, the Great, revealed: "We appointed the vision
which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind". He (Ibn Sa'd) said: It refers
to the vision of the eye which he saw with the eye. (pp. 246-248; bold and
capital emphasis ours)
The following is taken from Alfred Guillaume's The Life of Muhammad (Oxford
Uinversity Press Karachi), which is a translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah:
Ziyad b. 'Abdullah al-Bakka'i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following:
Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid
al-Aqsa WHICH IS THE TEMPLE OF AELIA, when Islam had spread in
Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes.
... His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven
and earth, UNTIL HE CAME TO JERUSALEM'S TEMPLE ...
In his story al-Hasan said: "The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they
arrived AT THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM" ... (Guillaume, pp. 181, 182;
bold and capital emphasis ours)
We next turn our attention to the sahih hadiths:
Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 233:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "When the Quraish disbelieved me (concerning my night
journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr (the unroofed portion of the Ka'ba) and Allah
displayed Bait-ul-Maqdis before me, and I started to inform them
(Quraish) about its signs while looking at it."
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 228:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

Regarding the Statement of Allah, "And We granted the vision (Ascension to
the heavens) which We made you see (as an actual eye witness) was only made
as a trial for the people." (17.60)
Ibn Abbas added: The sights which Allah's Apostle was shown on the Night
Journey when he was taken to Bait-ul-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) were actual
sights, (not dreams). And the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Quran is the tree
of Zaqqum (itself).
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0309:
It is narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him) said: I was brought al-Buraq Who is an animal white
and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his
hoof a distance equal to the range of version. I mounted it and came to the
Temple (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the
prophets. I entered the mosque and prayed two rak'ahs in it, and then came
out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the
milk, and Gabriel said: You have chosen the natural thing. Then he took me to
heaven ...
The next set of hadiths all presume the existence of an actual mosque/temple in
Jerusalem during Muhammad's time, just as there were actual mosques in Mecca and
Medina:
Narrated Anas ibn Malik
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: The prayer of a person in his
house is a single prayer; his prayer in the mosque of his tribe has the reward of
twenty-five prayers; his prayers in the mosque in which the Friday prayer is
observed has the reward of five hundred; his prayer IN THE MOSQUE OF
AQSA (i.e. BAYT AL-MAQDIS) has a reward of fifty thousand prayers;
his prayer in MY MOSQUE (the Prophet's mosque in Medina) has a
reward of fifty thousand prayers; and the prayer in the Sacred Mosque
(Ka'bah) at Makkah has a reward of one hundred thousand prayers.
Transmitted by Ibn Majah. (Al-Tirmidhi, Number 247- taken from the Alim
CD-ROM Version)
And:

... Abu Hurayra continued, "I met Basra ibn Abi Basra al-Ghiffari and he said,
Where have you come from? I said, From at-Tur. He said, If I had seen you
before you left, you would not have gone. I heard the Messenger of Allah, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Only make a special journey to three
mosques: the mosque of the Haram (Makka), this mosque (Madina), and
THE MOSQUE of Ilya or the Bait al-Maqdis (two names of Jerusalem).""
(He was not sure which expression was used.) ... (Malik's Al-Muwatta, Volume
5, Number 17; taken from the Alim CD-ROM Version)
The following commentary on S. 17:1 is taken from Tafsir Ibn Kathir-Abridged
Volume 5, Surah Hud to Surat Al-Isra', Verse 38, abridged by a group of scholars
under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, (Darussalam
Publishers & Distributors; Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore, July 2000):
<from Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa> means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem,
the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibraham Al-Khalil. The Prophets all
gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland.
This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him and upon them. (Ibid., p. 551; bold emphasis ours)
Ibn Kathir includes the following hadith:
I remember being in Al-Hijr, and the Quraysh were asking me about my Night
Journey. They asked me things about Bayt Al-Maqdis that I was not sure
of, and I felt more anxious and stressed then than I have ever felt. Then Allah
raised up Bayt Al-Maqdis for me to see, and there was nothing they asked
me about but I told them about it. And I remember being in a gathering of
the Prophets. Musa was standing there praying, and he was a man with curly
hair, as if he were one of the men of Shanu'ah. I saw 'Isa ibn Maryam standing
there praying, and the one who most resembles him is 'Urwah bin Mas'ud AthThaqafi. And I saw Ibrahim standing there praying, and for the one who most
resembles him is your companion (meaning himself). Then the time for prayer
came, and I led them in prayer. When I finished, a voice said, 'O Muhammad,
this is Malik, the keeper of Hell,' so I turned to him, and he greeted me first.
(Ibid., p. 571; bold emphasis ours)
Finally,
"The truth is that the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey when he was
awake, not in a dream, and he went from Makkah to Bayt Al-Maqdis riding
on Al-Buraq. When he reached THE DOOR OF THE SANCTUARY, he

tied up his animal by THE DOOR AND ENTERED, where he prayed two
Rakahs to 'greet the Masjid'...
"Then he came back down to Bayt Al-Maqdis, and the Prophets came
down with him and he led them in prayer there when the time for prayer
came. Some claim that he led them in prayer in heaven, but the reports seem
to say that it was in Bayt Al-Maqdis. In some reports it says that it
happened when he first ENTERED...
"Then he came OUT OF BAYT AL-MAQDIS and rode on Al-Buraq back to
Makkah in the darkness of the night. As for his being presented with the vessels
containing milk and honey, or milk and wine, or milk and water, or all of
these, some reports say that this happened in Bayt Al-Maqdis, and others
say that it happened in the heavens. It is possible that it happened in BOTH
places, because it is like offering food or drink to a guest when he arrives, and
Allah knows best." (Ibid. pp. 572-573; bold and capital emphasis ours)
The following citations are taken from 'Abd-Allah Hajjaj's The Isra' and Mi'raj-The
Prophet's Night-Journey And Ascent Into Heaven, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd., London,
second edition 1993. All bold emphasis ours:
Jabir Ibn 'Abd Allah heard the Prophet (S) say: "When Quraysh disbelieved me
(about the Isra'), I stood up in al-Hijr (the unroofed part of the Ka'bah) and
Allah displayed Bayt al-Maqdis to me. So I began to describe its features to
them whilst I was looking at it." (Ibid., p. 5)
Al-Hafiz said, Ka'b ibn Ahbar narrated that the gate of heaven called Mas'ad
al-Mala'ikah ("The angels' point of ascent") faces Bayt al-Maqdis.
The 'Ulama' understood from this that the reason why the Prophet (S) was
taken to Bayt al-Maqdis before ascent was so that he could be taken
straight up...
Other, weaker, suggestions have also been put forward. For example: so that the
Prophet (S) would see both of the Qiblahs on that night; or because Bayt alMaqdis had been the place to which most of the previous Prophets had
migrated, so the Prophet Muhammad (S) had to go there to have the same
virtues as they had... (Ibid., p. 15)
It is said that the 'Isra happened twice, and on both occasions the Prophet (S)
was awake. On the first occasion, he returned from Bayt al-Maqdis, and in
the morning he told the Quraysh what had happened. On the first morning he
told the Quraysh what had happened. On the second occasion he was taken to

Bayt al-Maqdis, then on the same night he was taken up to heaven... But when
he told them that he had traveled to Bayt al-Maqdis and returned in one
night, they disbelieved him and asked to describe it, because some of them
knew it, and they also knew that he had not seen it before... (Ibid., p. 18)
... I reached Bayt al-Maqdis, where I tied my beast (al-Buraq) to the
hitching-post which all the Prophets before me used... Gabriel and I
entered Bayt al-Maqdis where we both prayed two Rak'ahas"... "Then I
entered the Mosque where I saw all the Prophets praying - some standing,
some bowing and some prostrating... When the Prophet (S) reached alMasjid al-Aqsa, he began to pray..." Another Hadith narrated by Ahmad tells
us that when 'Umar entered Bayt al-Maqdis, he said: "I shall pray where the
Prophet (S) prayed" - then he went forward to the Qiblah and prayed. (Ibid., p.
28)
'Ayat said: "It is possible that he prayed with all the Prophets IN Bayt alMaqdis... Those who prayed with him IN Bayt al-Maqdis may have been there
as souls only, or in body and soul. It is more likely that he prayed with them IN
Bayt al-Maqdis before ascent; but Allah knows best." (Ibid., pp. 28-29)
The Book's glossary notes:
Bayt al-Maqdis: The name used for Jerusalem and in particular for the
Mosque from which the prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven.
(Ibid., p. 54)
M.A. Qazi's A Concise Dictionary of Islamic Terms, Kazi Publications, Chicago IL,
1979, p. 39 states:
Al-Masjid-al-Aqsa "The most distant Mosque." The temple at Jerusalem
erected by Prophet Solomon (A.A.), also known as "Baitul-Maqdis" or
Umar's Mosque.
Finally, Muhammad is purported to have said that a Muslim should visit the following
three Mosques:
Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 2, Book 21, Number 281:
Narrated Quza'a:

I heard Abu Said saying four words. He said, "I heard the Prophet (saying the
following narrative)." He had participated in twelve holy battles with the
Prophet.
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Do not set out on a journey except
for THREE Mosques i.e. Al-Masjid-Al-Haram, the Mosque of Allah's
Apostle, and the Mosque of Al-Aqsa, (Mosque of Jerusalem)."
That the phrase Bayt Al-Maqdis undoubtedly refers to the Temple structure located in
Jerusalem as the preceding traditions affirm is further clarified in the following hadith:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 585:
Narrated Abu Dhar:
I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the
earth?" He said, "Al-Masjid-ul-Haram (in Mecca)." I said, "Which was built
next?" He replied "The mosque of Al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem)." I said, "What
was the period of construction between the two?" He said, "Forty
years." He added, "Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due,
perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers
in time)."
This would place the erection of the Kabah at approximately 998 BC., since the
construction of the first Temple was not completed by Solomon until BC. 951 (cf. 1
Kings 6:1-7:51).

My response:
It is possible that the temple of Solomon was built around 951 BC. The Bible's
accounts are not all accurate. Many historical errors were found in the Bible
before. The Bible itself recognizes that man's scribal errors, alterations and innovations had
corrupted it and it's validity, and turned it into a "lie":

"`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV
Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has
made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the
Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a
lie!
Consider the following few examples that consist of historical contradictions in the
Bible:
II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000
horsemen and Shobach the commander.
I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen
I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses
Ezra 2:5 talks about an exile Arah having 775 sons.
Nehemiah 7:10 talks about the same exile Arah having 652 sons.

II Samuel 24:13 So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall
SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three
months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I Chronicles 21:11 SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD,
Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed
before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
How did Judas die?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and
hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed
out." (Acts 1:18)
2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore MICHAL the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of
her death.
2 Samuel 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom
she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of MICHAL the
daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.
2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter
of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the
sight of the LORD.
26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8
36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chronicles 16:1
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
22 in 2 Kings 8:26
42 in 2 Chronicle 22:2
Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicle 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11
Please visit: Contradictions and proofs of Historical Corruptions in the Bible.
So the proof that you have in 1 Kings 6:1 through 1 Kings 7:51 is only an estimation,
and not an irrefutable proof.
The books of 1 and 2 Kings were written by people who were not anointed from GOD
Almighty. Let us look at what the theologians of the NIV Bible said about the books:
From www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm
"There is little conclusive evidence as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings."
"Whoever the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of
Deuteronomy."
(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459).
So as we can see, these books only give estimations of men, and not clear Divine
Commands from GOD Almighty.

He wrote:
The problem with all of this is that the first Jerusalem Temple was destroyed by
Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian armies in 587 BC. Furthermore, General Titus and his

Roman soldiers leveled the Second Temple in AD. 70, more than five centuries before
this alleged night journey to Jerusalem took place. In fact, the Temple that eventually
became Masjid al-Aqsa did not come into existence until AD. 691 when Amir Abd-ulMalik built it.
These preceding factors make it highly improbable to date Sura 17:1 to the time of
Muhammad. This passage could have only been written sometime after the erection
of Masjid al-Aqsa. This is further substantiated by the fact that Masjid alAqsa contains no early references to the supposed night journey. This is a strange
omission since Muslims claim that Masjid al-Aqsa was erected in commemoration of
this alleged event. The inscriptions that do mention the night journey are later
additions made by Abdul Hamid II in 1876, nearly eleven centuries later.

My response:
The Arabic word "Masjid", which means Mosque or Temple, is derived from the root
word "Sujood", which means Prostration. A Masjid does not have to be a building
decorated with arts and standing on strong pillars. It can be an area of worship where
it is surrounded by boundaries; whether it is small walls or stones gathered by men.
So it is quite possible that since the area where the modern "Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa" is
located in is believed to be the place where the Temple of Solomon was built in, that
the Jews used to gather together and do their Prayers and Prostrations to GOD
Almighty there. That area can be technically called a Temple or Mosque; a place of
Prostration.
That is why "Qubbat Al-Sakhra", which is the building with the golden dome top, was
built. It is strongly believed that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had set his
foot on that land before he was taken up to Heaven and sent back. It was an open
land. So to preserve that holy site, the Muslims decided to build Qubbat Al-Sakhra
near the Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. This should prove my theory that the area where the
Temple of Solomon was believed to be built in was really an open area that was
dedicated for worship. That area was called Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, which means the
Farthest Mosque.
So technically, there is no error in the Noble Quran's claims regarding this matter.
More on this is located at: Al-Isra, The Night Journey "With Proofs" From
Christian Sources.

He wrote:
In light of all this, we ask the following questions:
What Temple did Muhammad visit, enter and pray at before ascending to
heaven?
Seeing that the Quran mentions a journey to a Mosque that did not exist during
the lifetime of Muhammad, how can you consider the Quran to be 100% the
word of God?
In light of the fact that both the Quran and the Islamic traditions contain this
historical error, how can you trust either source to provide you with reliable
information on the life of Muhammad and the first Muslims?
Does not the fact that the Quran mentions a Mosque which was only erected in
AD 691 prove that there were Muslims who unashamedly and deceitfully
added stories to the Quranic text and passed them off as revelation from God?
If you cannot find an answer to this historical problem within the Quran, why
do you still remain a Muslim?
May God use this article to bring open-minded Muslims to the truth of his word, the
Holy Bible.
In the service of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ forever. Amen.

My response:
Here are my answers to your questions:
Q: What Temple did Muhammad visit, enter and pray at before ascending to heaven?
A: This was explained above.
Q: Seeing that the Quran mentions a journey to a Mosque that did not exist during the

lifetime of Muhammad, how can you consider the Quran to be 100% the word of
God?
A: I consider the Noble Quran as the Holy Words of GOD Almighty, because the
Noble Quran's Miracle is the Everlasting Miracle that exists in all times and all
places. All of the Prophets' Miracles died when they left/died. But the Miracle
of Islam remains forever in the Noble Quran. Please visit: The Great Scientific
Miracles and Discoveries in the Noble Quran and Islam.
Q: In light of the fact that both the Quran and the Islamic traditions contain this
historical error, how can you trust either source to provide you with reliable
information on the life of Muhammad and the first Muslims?
A: It is not the Noble Quran that provides historical errors. It is the Bible that is
filled with man's alterations and corruptions that is filled with lies and false
information. Please visit: Just who were the real authors of the Bible? Today's
Books and Gospels' authors of the Bible are UNKNOWN. See the comments
from the NIV Bible itself!
Q: Does not the fact that the Quran mentions a Mosque which was only erected in AD
691 prove that there were Muslims who unashamedly and deceitfully added stories to
the Quranic text and passed them off as revelation from God?
A: As I explained above, a Mosque or Temple doesn't have to be a building with
art decorations and standing on pillars. It can be a site that is common among
people, and is used for Worshiping Allah Almighty.
Q: If you cannot find an answer to this historical problem within the Quran, why do
you still remain a Muslim?
A: The Noble Quran contains no historical problem. I therefore have no reason
to leave Islam, because Islam had proven itself to be perfect. On the contrary,
the Bible admits that man had corrupted it and inserted lies in it:
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold,
the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah
8:8)"

The Crucifixion and Resurrection were never prophesied in the

Bible's Old Testament:
The sections of this article are:
1- Ample Prophesies in the Old Testament about the Messiah getting saved from
crucifixion.
(a)- Psalm 91 is not just limited to the foot striking the rock!
(b)- The Crucifixion is Symbolic in the New Testament.
(c)- Indisputable errors and contradictions in the Crucifixion and Resurrection
Accounts!
2- Isaiah 53 and its mistranslations.
(a)- Isaiah 53's symbolic speeches - Detailed analysis on every verse.
(b)- Isaiah 53:12.
3- The crucifixion would've broken at least one bone and refuted John 19:30-40!
4- Islam denies the crucifixion and much of the Bible agrees.
- Jesus was never "disfigured" to a point "beyond human likeness"!
5- GOD Almighty Changed His Mind a lot throughout the Bible.
6- The Jews' view on Isaiah 53.
7- Conclusion. (Must read!!)

8- Rebuttals.
(a)- Detailed rebuttal on Isaiah 53.
(b)- Rebuttal from the New Testament.

1-

Ample Prophesies in the Old Testament

about the Messiah getting saved from
crucifixion:
You would expect that major events such as the crucifixion and the resurrection of
Christ, that make up the entire case for Christianity, to be at least prophesied in the
Bible's Old Testament clearly, without any ambiguity, and without any deliberate
mistranslations and lies. But the Truth and the sad reality for the believers in the
crucifixion, who are too also desperate to prove trinity even though the word itself,
"trinity", doesn't even exist in the entire Bible, is that these major events, the
crucifixion and the resurrection, were never mentioned in the entire Old Testament.
The following Biblical verses that further refute the crucifixion and resurrection lies:
Being lifted and saved:
Luke 4:10-12
10 For the Scriptures say, He will order his angels to protect and guard you.
11 And they will hold you up with their hands so you wont even hurt your foot
on a stone.
12 Jesus responded, The Scriptures also
God.

say, You must not test the Lord your

Matthew 4:5-10
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city, Jerusalem, to the highest point of the
Temple,
6 and said, If you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say, He will
order his angels to protect you. And they will hold you up with their hands so you
wont even hurt your foot on a stone.
7 Jesus responded, The Scriptures also say, You must not test the Lord your
God.
8 Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the
kingdoms of the world and their glory.
9 I will give it all to you, he said, if you will kneel down and worship me.
10 Get out of here, Satan, Jesus told him. For the Scriptures say, You must
worship the Lord your God and serve only him.
Please visit: Psalm 91 clearly confirms that Jesus never got crucified.
There are few points to notice in these verses:

1-

Notice how satan referred to Psalm 91 regarding the protection of Jesus.

2-

Notice how Jesus confirmed that Psalm 91 was indeed speaking about him by
saying "the Scriptures also say..." (Luke 4:12 and Matthew 4:7).

3-

As we will see in the sections below, Psalm 91 is not just concerned with
preventing Christ or the Messiah from striking his feet against the ground. This is the
least point the chapter is concerned with. The chapter concentrated heavily on:
(see the following sub-section's points)

(a)-

Psalm 91 is not just limited to the foot

striking the rock!

The following table contains all of Psalm 91 and detailed analysis about its key
verses. Notice how the New Testament in Luke 4:10-11 and Matthew 4:5-6 and in
many other places completely misquoted and misunderstood Psalm 91. Psalm 91 and
its verses are not just concerned about Jesus' striking of his feet against a rock (Psalm
91:12). That is a lie and a clear fabrication! [1] [2] This piece is very minor in the
chapter, because the chapter is more focused on:
GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save
him (Psalm 91:3).
GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm
91:4).
Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5).
Christ will then observe with his own eyes the
punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8).
No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will
even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts
him getting beaten up before crucifixion).
GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him
and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his
foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling
and punishment.
Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered
and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would
these verses be valid if Christ got crucified.

 His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even

see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the
way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In
Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible
that Jesus Christ had wives and children).
His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12).
"Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using
the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it
never meant a literal death.
Important Note: Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of
Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are
speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once
throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to
save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again,
clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt.

Here is Psalm 91 that Luke 4:10-11 and Matthew 4:56 link to Jesus:
(Pay attention to the red text below, especially in Psalm 91:1112, 15 and the others)
Psalm 91

1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the
shadow of the Almighty. [a]
2 I will say [b] of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust."
3 Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the
deadly pestilence.
4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you
will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and
rampart.

5 You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies
by day,
6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague
that destroys at midday.
7 A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right
hand, but it will not come near you.
8 You will only observe with your eyes and see the
punishment of the wicked.
(According to the Noble Quran and
the original writings of the Disciples of
Jesus, Jesus was not crucified, and he
watched the crucifixion of the doomed
person.

Also, according to the Apocalypse of Peter that

was discovered in Egypt, Jesus sat on the tree and
watched the crucified one getting crucified. Peter
witnessed this and wrote the Apocalypse. Not only
that, but while Christians insist that the book is a
Gnostic one, but according to Wikipedia.org,"It is
unclear whether this text advocates
an adoptionist (Jesus was Divine)
or docetist (Jesus' body and crucifixion were an
illusion) christology".
So there is no proof that the book is Gnostic.)
9 If you make the Most High your dwelling even the LORD,
who is my refuge10 then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near
your tent.
11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard
you in all your ways;
12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not
strike your foot against a stone.
(If Jesus died on the cross and got buried, then his feet would've
struck the ground and the stones on it from bringing him

down,throwing him on the floor and burying him).

13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra; you will trample
the great lion and the serpent.
14 "Because he loves me," says the LORD, "I will rescue
him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
15 He will call upon me, and I will answer him; I will be with
him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him.
16 With long life will I satisfy him and show him my
salvation."
Footnotes:
a. Psalm 91:1 Hebrew Shaddai
b. Psalm 91:2 Or He says

There is no question!
There is no question that the emphasized parts above, especially
in Psalm 91:11-12, 15 and others, clearly and indisputably agree
with the Noble Quran and Isaiah 52:13! Jesus was neither
crucified nor resurrected, and he was protected and lifted by
GOD Almighty. Also, the New Testament, again, confirms
that Psalm 91 is referring to Jesus Christ.
GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm
91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3).
GOD Almighty will cover him with His
Protection (Psalm 91:4).
Christ will then not have any fear in him
(Psalm 91:5).

 Christ will then observe with his own eyes the

punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8).
No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or
disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm
91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten
up before crucifixion).
GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to
protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14,
Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the
ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and
punishment.
Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will
be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15,
Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be
valid if Christ got crucified.
His life will be prolonged (extended) and he
will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10
and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict
Jesus never got married and had children. In
Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite
possible that Jesus Christ had wives and
children).
His life will overpower death (Isaiah
53:12).
"Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be
symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several
English translations, and it never meant a
literal death.
Important Note: Psalm 91 is speaking as a
number of Prophecies that WILL take place.

Notice how the verses are speak of future events

that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout
the entire New Testament were the Angels sent
to save Jesus from striking his foot against a
rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is
indeed false and corrupt.

Lifting up those who bow down:

Psalm 145:14
The LORD upholds all those who fall and lifts up all who are bowed down.
Psalm 146:8
the LORD gives sight to the blind, the LORD lifts up those who are bowed down,
the LORD loves the righteous.
Isaiah 52:13
13 See, my servant will act wisely ; he will be raised and lifted up and highly
exalted.
Please visit: Jesus bowed down to GOD Almighty begging Him to save him from
the crucifixion.

GOD Almighty Saving His annointed King and saving those who take refuge in
Him:
Psalm 20:6
6 Now I know that the Lord saves his anointed king. He answers him from his
holy heaven. The power of God's right hand saves the king.
Psalm 17:7
Show the wonder of your great love, you who save by your right hand those who
take refuge in you from their foes.

Psalm 18:3
I call to the LORD, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies.
Psalm 9:13
O LORD, see how my enemies persecute me! Have mercy and lift me up from the
gates of death,
Psalm 30:1
[ A psalm. A song. For the dedication of the temple. Of David. ] I will exalt you, O
LORD, for you lifted me out of the depths and did not let my enemies gloat over me.
Note: The Psalms of David, while they are narrated by him, but they do contain many
prophecies about the coming of Jesus Christ or the Messiah. The New Testament had
made many references to many of the Psalms verses and linked them to Jesus Christ.
It is also interesting to know that King David was never killed by his enemies.
Therefore, the speech in Psalm 9:13 and Psalm 30:1 refer to a live man and not a man
who died. Notice how David said:

1- "I will exalt you, O LORD, for you lifted me out of the depths and did not let my
enemies gloat over me."

2- "Have mercy and lift me up from the gates of death".

The two quotes indicate that David cried out to GOD Almighty for help, and GOD
Almighty lifted him from the enemies' defeat and death. In other words, David
was victorious and was never killed or put to death by them. Remember that King
David was never killed by his enemies. He was lifted up by GOD Almighty and was
made victorious over them.
Therefore, it is also safe to say that GOD Almighty's Commands about "saving" and "
sending down the Angels to lift up" Christ from his enemies, in Psalm 91 and the rest
of the Psalm verses above, also undoubtebly prove that Jesus Christ indeed never got
crucified and was indeed saved from crucifixion and death.
For more on this please visit:

Psalm 91 clearly states that Jesus Christ will never get crucified.
Psalm 116, 117 and 118 indesputably prove that Jesus Christ never got crucified.
Jesus in Hebrews 5:7-8 cried out to GOD Almighty to be saved and "he was
heard".

The following articles are very

important:
The following five articles contain much of the necessary
verses and proofs to refute the deliberate mistranslation and
misinterpretation of Isaiah 53.
Note: Brothers Abdullah Smith and Ozzy are American converts
to Islam.

Psalm 91 clearly confirms

that Jesus never got
crucified!

Psalm 116, 117 and 118

indesputably prove that Jesus Christ

never got crucified.

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. By
Abdullah Smith.
- Part II.
- Part III.
Rebuttal to Jochen Katz on Abdullah
Smith and his war against the Crucifixion Part I. By Abdullah Smith.
- Part II.

- Part III.
- Part IV.
Does Isaiah 53 say that the Servant will
be crucified? By Musa.
Psalm 22 and 88 also confirm Islam's
claim about Jesus never got crucified.

Also, other related articles:

The disciples' original writings that were found
in Palestine declare that Jesus never got
crucified.
A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus'
"resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was
foretold in the OT when it wasn't!
Forgery of Matthew 23. By Abdullah Smith.
The Resurrection hoax. By Abdullah Smith.
Contradictions in the resurrection story in the
Bible.
Does the Noble Quran in Verse 19:33 confirm
Jesus' crucifixion?

(b)-

The Crucifixion is Symbolic in the

New Testament:
Please visit: http://www.answeringchristianity.com/abdullah_smith/katz_crucifixion_rebuttal_4.htm

(c)-

Indisputable errors and contradictions

in the Crucifixion and Resurrection
Accounts!
Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_53_contradictions.htm.

2-

Isaiah 53 and its mistranslations:

Please visit the Rebuttals section below for great analysis on Isaiah 53. Before we
look at the Isaiah 53 chapter, I'd like for you to keep the following important points
about the chapter in mind:

(a)-

Isaiah 53's symbolic speeches:

(Most of the following points were taken from brother Musa's
rebuttal; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him)

1-

Isaiah 53:3 says that "Jesus" is despised by all men. In Luke

10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told
that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:1119 and other verses).

2-

In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions.

Now right away one might assume this is the death of
Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not killed. But let
us go with killed for your arguments sake. This is not what this
verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is
paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is
exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded,
which further proves that Christ was never killed.

3-

Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are
two possible interpretations and answers to this:
1. Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the
crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong
because Jesus spoke during his trial with both
Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus'
famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he
said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which
translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you
forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did
open his mouth.
2. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is
also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the
crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you
forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to
GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not
get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:3644, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to
Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging

Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did

object.

4-

Isaiah 53:8's English translation falsely states "he will be cut

off from the land of the living". See below in my rebutttals
section where I've proven from the NIV Bible's commentary itself

"He will
be thrown in jail."
that the Hebrew word says

5-

Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and
the rich. According to http://scripturetext.com/isaiah/53-9.htm:
"in his death" is a translation to the Hebrew Mawth. This
word is symbolic as further confirmed in the Hebrew
lexicon:
"in his death
maveth (maw'-veth)
death (natural or violent); concretely, the dead,
their place or state (hades); figuratively,
pestilence, ruin -- (be) dead(-ly), death, die(-d)."

(http://scripturetext.com/isaiah/53-9.htm)
So in his death here is symbolically referring to his
execution trial and not necessarily his physical and
literal death. This is further proven in Young's Literal
Translation of the verse:
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the
rich in his death [Here is how the literal translation says:
"And it appointeth with the wicked his grave, And with
the rich [are] his high places"....This is verified at this link:
(Young's Literal Translation)], though he had done no

violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Other translations read:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah
53:9;&version=51;
Isaiah 53:9 (New Living Translation)
9 He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone.
But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich
mans grave.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah
53:9;&version=46;
Isaiah 53:9 (Contemporary English Version)
9 He wasn't dishonest or violent, but he was buried in a
tomb of cruel and rich people.

There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy:

1. Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66,
Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a
tomb and then his body disappeared after that.
But he never ONCE was buried under ground as
our dead get buried.
2. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place,
was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the
rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as
recorded in the gospels.

Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked
and the rich. Jesus was buried alone.

6-

In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life

and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And
Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his

soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the

overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and
Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm
91further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made
long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the
gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any
child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will
live and he will have and see his children.

7-

In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be

poured unto death. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ
never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53
chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with
Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings
in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got
crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient
texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being
poured unto death means to me that Jesus' life will overpower
death! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states
that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will
also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT
HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will
call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him
andHONOR him. Christ would not have been honored if he
have died the humiliating death of the cross. And certainly, he
would not have been "saved" either by the Angels.

Given all of this, let us now look at the Chapter of Isaiah 53 in the Bible:
1
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of
the LORD been revealed?
2

He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out
of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to
him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3
He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and
familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their
faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet
we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and
afflicted.
5
But he was pierced wounded (KJV) for our
transgressions, he was crushed bruised (KJV) for our
iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon
him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to
his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us
all.
7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before
her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8
By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can
speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land
of the living (This is a lie! The Hebrew says he will be
thrown in jail according to the NIV Bible's commentary. Read

the Rebuttals section below for ample details); for the

transgression of my people he was stricken.
9
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the
rich in his death [Here is how the literal translation says:
"And it appointeth with the wicked his grave, And with the rich
[are] his high places"....This is verified at this link: (Young's
Literal Translation)], though he had done no violence, nor
was any deceit in his mouth.

Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked
and the rich. According
to http://scripturetext.com/isaiah/53-9.htm:
"in his death" is a translation to the
Hebrew Mawth. The word is symbolic one as
further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon:
"in his death
maveth (maw'-veth)
death (natural or violent); concretely, the
dead, their place or state
(hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin -- (be)
dead(-ly), death, die(-d)."

(http://scripturetext.com/isaiah/53-9.htm)
So in his death here is symbolically referring to his
execution trial and not necessarily his physical
and literal death. This is further proven
in Young's Literal Translation of the verse:
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and
with the rich in his death [Here is how the literal
translation says: "And it appointeth with the wicked
his grave, And with the rich [are] his high
places"....This is verified at this link: (Young's
Literal Translation)], though he had done no

violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Other translations read:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?
search=isaiah 53:9;&version=51;
Isaiah 53:9 (New Living Translation)
9 He had done no wrong and had never deceived
anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was
put in a rich mans grave.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?
search=isaiah 53:9;&version=46;
Isaiah 53:9 (Contemporary English Version)
9 He wasn't dishonest or violent, but he was
buried in a tomb of cruel and rich people.

10
Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

he will
see his offspring and prolong his days, and
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
According to Christianity, Jesus Christ was single
and never married nor did he have children. This
verse clearly refutes Christianity, because the
Servant here will live to see his biological children
("his offspring") along with his days being
prolonged (made longer). Christ died at the young
age of 33 according to Christianity, which is also
against this verse. Christs' years are short in
Christianity, while in Isaiah 53:10, the servant's
years are very long and extended along with him
living them with his biological children.

11

After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light and be
satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify
many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will
divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life
unto death [It doesn't at all mean that he will die. The literal
translation says: "Because that he exposed to death his
soul"....This is verified again at this link: (Young's Literal
Translation).......Both Islam and Isaiah 52:13 claim that Jesus
never got crucified. See below.], and was numbered with the
transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors.

(b)-

Isaiah 53:12:

The mistranslated verse states:

Isaiah 5:12 "....because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the
transgressors....."
This verse doesn't clearly state that the predicted servant will actually die. It could be
easily read as he will defeat, overpower and/or escape death. Also, when we study
carefully the poetical literature of Isaiah 53, and study carefully the claims made
above, we see that "him pouring his life unto death" means that the goodness that he
will bring from GOD Almighty will be the light that will bring his people from
darkness (death) into light (goodness). He will defeat death (darkness). Isaiah 5:12
does not state that he will die. It clearly states that he will shadow or overwhelm
death by his life.
If I, for instance, pour my cup of cranberry juice on the white carpet, then I would
create a big red spot on the carpet. I wouldn't be changing the juice into carpet, or the

carpet into juice. No, I would simply defeat the whiteness of the carpet by the color
of the juice. That's what pouring the juice on the carpet means.
Same thing applies with the servant pouring his life unto death. GOD Almighty
considers evil doing and not believing in Him as equal to death.
Important Note: In many Verses in the Bible, we see that GOD Almighty used in
Hebrew, Sheol, the word for "hell" as the same Hebrew word for "death". That is why
the Christian Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in "Hell Fire" as punishment for the
unbelievers. They believe that "Hell" is actual "Death". So to put it in other words,
Isaiah 53:12 could also mean that the Servant (Jesus) will over shadow or cover "hell
(death)" with "life (good)". So whoever believes in that Servant from the People of
Israel will be saved from hell or death.
Have Isaiah 53:12 clearly said "and he will die for people's sins and resurrect after 3
days", then we would have nothing to argue about. So Jesus pouring his life (good)
unto death (bad), means that whomever believes in his message from the People of
Israel will defeat bad (darkness) and will be saved, and will have Jesus' life
(goodness). This perfectly matches what Islam claims about our beloved Prophet
Jesus peace be upon him.
Please visit:
The blessed Jesus in Islam.
Muhammad was prophesized in the Bible.
The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. By Abdullah Smith.
- Part II.
- Part III.
Does Isaiah 53 say that the Servant will be
crucified? By Ozzycda.
- His article is also on my site in case his blog is down.

 Psalm 91 clearly confirms that Jesus never got

crucified.
Psalm 116, 117 and 118 indesputably prove that
Jesus Christ never got crucified.
Psalm 22 and 88 also confirm Islam's claim about
Jesus never got crucified.

3-

The crucifixion would've broken at least

one bone, refuting John 19:30-40!
If we were to take the Bible literally, then we will see clear contradictions in the
crucifixion story. Let us look at what the Bible says about piercing Jesus:
John 19:30-40:
30
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished."
With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
31
Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be
a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies
left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to
have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.
32

The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man
who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.
33
But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already
dead, they did not break his legs.
34
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear,
bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
35
The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is
true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that
you also may believe.
36
These things happened so that the scripture would be
fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"

The Verses that reference

the Bones:
"A righteous man may have many troubles, but the
LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his
bones, not one of them will be broken. (From the
NIV Bible, Psalm 34:19-20)"
As these verses don't even seem to be talking about
the Messiah or any crucifixion, but assuming that
they did, notice how Psalm 34:20 says that GOD
Almighty will protect "all his bones". So, not even an
inch from his bones will be damaged according to the
Scriptures - again assuming that the verses are even

talking about the Messiah!! This is exactly what the

Noble Quran and Isaiah 52:13 say!
Also, notice how Psalm 34:19 says that the LORD
delivers him from "ALL OF THE troubles, which
clearly goes against the crucifixion lie. But anyway
despite the John 19:36 verse, I still proved, by Allah
Almighty's Mercy, Grace and Will, that the Psalm verses
actually further proved the Noble Quran's claims along
withIsaiah 52:13, and Jesus' Disciples' and the Early
Christians original writings that were found in Palestine
and Egypt about Jesus never got crucified! See
below...

Also, please visit: Chapter Psalm 91 clearly and

indisputably confirms that Jesus never got

crucified!
Psalm 116, 117 and 118 indesputably prove that
Jesus Christ never got crucified.
Psalm 22 and 88 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus
never got crucified.
A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus'
"resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was
foretold in the OT when it wasn't!
Forgery of Matthew 23.

37
and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they
have pierced."
38

Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus.

Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he
feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the
body away.
39
He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had
visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh
and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.
40
Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices,
in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial
customs.
First of all, notice the man-made third party narration in the book of John. The NIV
Bible's Historians and Theologians are not even sure who wrote the books of John, 1
John, 2 John and 3 John. The original authors are mysterious.
In the above verses, the mysterious author or authors suggest that Jesus' bones were
reserved because the soldiers did not break his knees, hence this fulfills the Scriptures'
prophecy that GOD will protect his body that not even a single bone would break.
Also see detailed refutations to Exodus 12:46,
Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20 that
supposedly suggest that GOD Almighty was going to get
pierced on the cross.
Hebrews 5:7-8 clearly and irrefutably claim that Jesus was
saved from the cross; confirming Islam's claims.
None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all
fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.

 Chapter Psalm 91 clearly and indisputably confirms

that Jesus never got crucified!
Psalm 116, 117 and 118 indesputably prove that
Jesus Christ never got crucified.
Psalm 22 and 88 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never
got crucified.
A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus'
"resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in
the OT when it wasn't!
Forgery of Matthew 23.
Contradictions in the resurrection story in the Bible.
Let us look at the obvious contradiction in the above verses:
Taken from the above verses: "These things happened so that the scripture would be
fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken,' and, as another scripture says, 'They
will look on the one they have pierced.' (From the NIV Bible, John 19:36-37)"
"A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them
all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. (From the NIV
Bible, Psalm 34:19-20)"
Again, as these verses don't even seem to be talking about the Messiah or any
crucifixion, but assuming that it did, notice how Psalm 34:20 says that GOD Almighty
will protect "all his bones". So, not even an inch from his bones will be damaged
according to the Scriptures - again assuming that the verses are even talking about the
Messiah!!

As you might know, the crucifixion back then was done by nailing to the cross the
hands and the ankles or the feet. If GOD Almighty was going to protect Jesus' body
that not even a single bone will be broken, then how would the crucifixion and the
death of Jesus be possible then?!
My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get
nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking
part of the feet's bones?!
And for the parts of the Bible that suggest that Jesus actually died (which clearly
contradict the Verses that I presented above), please visit What parts of the Bible do
Muslims believe are closest to the Truth?

I clearly see the Noble Quran's Claim about Jesus

being saved from crucifixion being confirmed in
Psalm 34:20!

Would Jesus have at least cracked a bone?

When one's hand and feet are nailed to a cross and then he is left on the cross to die
slowly and painfully, would his body's weight at least:

1-

Not break a single bone from either one of his hands or one of his feet?

2-

Would he not at least crack a bone?

A crack is a break! And since we have 28 bones in each foot [1], and 27 bones in each
hand [2], and some of them are very tiny and slim, then I find it quite impossible that
at least not a single tiny one of them would break if the entire body's weight was

resting on them. But anyway, regardless, Psalm 91 which Luke 4:10-11 and Matthew
4:5-6 link Jesus Christ to it, clearly declares that Christ won't get crucified.

Sources:
1- "There are 26 bones in the human foot (28 if you include the sesamoid bones at the
base of the big toe). These are: the Talus, which connects to the tibia at the ankle;
the Calcaneus, which forms the heel; the Navicular, Cuboid, and
three Cuneiforms (Medial, Intermediate, and Lateral), which form the middle of the
foot; the five Metatarsals, which radiate out to the toes; and 14Phalanges (2-3-3-33), which form the toes." (Source)
2- "27 and no muscle except for
The intrinsic muscle groups are the thenar and hypothenar muscles (thenar referring to
the thumb, hypothenar to the small finger), the interosseus muscles (between the
metacarpal bones, four dorsally and three volarly) and the lumbrical muscles. These
muscles arise from the deep flexor (and are special because they have no bony origin)
and insert on the dorsal extensor hood mechanism." (Source)

4-

Islam denies the crucifixion and much of

the Bible agrees:
Both Muslims and Christians believe that the grave of Jesus today is empty. It doesn't
have his body in it, because both believe that he was raised to Heaven. The difference
between Muslims and Christians in this issue is that Muslims believe that Jesus never
died on the cross but was raised to GOD Almighty. Christians believe that Jesus died
on the cross, was buried in the grave(obviously his foot would've struck at least one
stone!), and was resurrected to GOD Almighty.

Both the crucifixion and resurrection, as we've seen above, are not supported nor were
ever foretold in the Bible's Old Testament, especially for the resurrection! I mean,
Christians could doctor and twist verses and translations in the OT to support the
crucifixion, but with absolute certainty, there is not a single verse in the entire OT that
even talks about the resurrection. Please visit:
A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus'
"resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in
the OT when it wasn't!
Forgery of Matthew 23. By Abdullah Smith.
The Resurrection hoax. By Abdullah Smith.
Contradictions in the resurrection story in the Bible.
In Isaiah 53, all it says is that he will get pierced which again it never mentioned the
cross nor did it ever mention any sort of resurrection, not just in this chapter, but also
throughout the Old Testament. If this servant is indeed Jesus peace be upon him, then
him being pierced and never dying seems to perfectly support the Islamic teaching
about Prophet Jesus peace be upon him NEVER died on the cross for anyone's sins.
Let us look at the following Noble Verse from the Noble Quran (The Muslims Holy
Scripture):
"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That
they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of
Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to
them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but
only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him
up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the
people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his
death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them. (The
Noble Quran, 4:156-159)"

Now compare the Noble Verses to Isaiah 52:13 "...he will be raised and lifted
up....". Notice that Isaiah 52:13 did not say "....he will be RESURRECTED and
lifted up...." Not even once, did the Old Testament predict for the foretold Servant to
be raised to GOD Almighty after death. There absolutely no mention of any sort of
resurrection in the Bible's Old Testament what so ever.
Here are the English translations of Isaiah 52:13 that say exactly "raised and lifted
up" or something very similar: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
[15] [16].
The verses from the Noble Quran and Isaiah 52 are perfectly supported and confirmed
at:
Psalm 91 clearly confirms that Jesus never got crucified.
Psalm 116, 117 and 118 indesputably prove that Jesus Christ never got crucified.
Also, please visit: Does the Noble Quran in Verse 19:33 confirm Jesus' crucifixion?
Furthermore, there are early writings that were found in Palestine that say that there is
another who was called Jesus BarAbaa (son of his father since his father wasn't
known) got crucified in the place of our Jesus Christ, whom people also called "Jesus
BarAbaa".
Please visit: The disciples' original writings that were found in Palestine declare
that Jesus never got crucified.

Again, I clearly see the Noble Quran's Claim about

Jesus being saved from crucifixion being confirmed in
Psalm 34:20!

Jesus was never "disfigured" to a point

"beyond human likeness"!
Let us look at the following verse:
Isaiah 52:14 "Just as there were many who were appalled at him - his appearance
was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human
likeness-"
It appears that this verse further proves Islam's claims about Jesus, peace be upon him,
never got crucified on the cross, because according to today's corrupt New Testament,
Jesus never got disfigured to a point where no one could recognize his face; not from
crucifixion, nor from the beating that he supposedly received before the crucifixion.
To see the several "canons" or NTs of the "Bible", please visit:

The different "Canons" of the Bible!

Since the Bible was not documented until 150 to 300 years after Jesus peace be upon
him, and during his ministry, nothing was ever documented on paper regarding his
deity, we Muslims believe that a great deal of corruption had entered the Bible. The
following reasons will clarify the Muslims' position:
1- As I mentioned above, the Old Testament doesn't in predict the resurrection of
Jesus, nor it ever considered him as GOD. Please read The "God" title in Isaiah 9:6
was given to others before and after Jesus.
2- The early Christians rejected Trinity and never believed in it.
3- The disciples of Jesus (John, Mark, Luke, etc...) didn't write the Gospels that were
named after them in the New Testament. I quoted from the NIV Bible the Christian
Theologians themselves regarding the history of the NT.

4- We believe that few centuries after Jesus peace be upon him the Church tampered
with the Bible and invented the Trinity belief.
5- We only believe in Jesus' personal quotes as closest to the truth.
6- Jesus himself in the New Testament taught what Islam teaches; the Oneness of
GOD Almighty and doing Righteousness.
7- Jesus according to Islam never got killed on the cross. Allah Almighty saved
him. As I mentioned in point #5, we only believe in Jesus' quotes as closest to the
Truth in the New Testament. Islam's claims regarding Allah Almighty saving Jesus
seem to fit with Jesus peace be upon him asking Allah Almighty to save him from
crucifiction (Matthew 26:39).

5-

GOD Almighty Changed His Mind a lot

throughout the Bible:
Even though we do not have a single proof about the Old Testament prophesying
about the Messiah's crucifixion, but in this section, we will go ahead and accept this
man-made fabrication. We are still left with ample verses, in the Bible, about GOD
Almighty Changing His Mind a lot that clearly support that GOD Almighty Had all
the reasons to save Jesus from the pain and humiliation of the crucifixion:

GOD Almighty Changing His Emotions:

Ample verses from the book of Isaiah.

GOD Almighty Changing His Mind:

Hosea 11:8
How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat
you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within
me; all my compassion is aroused.
Amos 7:3
So the LORD relented. "This will not happen," the LORD said.
Jeremiah 18:8
and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it
the disaster I had planned.
Exodus 32:14
Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had
threatened.
Jonah 3:9-10
Who can tell, God may turn and revoke His sentence against us, and turn away
from His fierce anger so that we perish not. And God saw their works, that they turned
from their evil way;and God revoked His evil that He had said that He would do to
them and He did not do it.
Joel 2:13-14
Rend your hearts and not your garments and return to the Lord, your God, for He is
gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness; and He
revokes His sentence of evil. Who knows but what He will turn, revoke your
sentence, and leave a blessing behind Him, even a cereal or meal offering and a drink
offering for the Lord, your God?
1 Chronicles 21:15
And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the
LORD saw it and was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was
destroying the people,"Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD
was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
Exodus 32:14
and Jehovah repenteth of the evil which He hath spoken of doing to His people.

Genesis 6:6
and Jehovah repenteth that He hath made man in the earth, and He grieveth
Himself -- unto His heart.
Judges 2:18
And when Jehovah raised up to them judges -- then was Jehovah with the judge, and
saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for it repenteth
Jehovah, because of their groaning from the presence of their oppressors, and of
those thrusting them away.
2 Samuel 24:16
and the messenger putteth forth his hand to Jerusalem to destroy it, and Jehovah
repenteth concerning the evil, and saith to the messenger who is destroying among
the people, `Enough, now, cease thy hand;' and the messenger of Jehovah was near the
threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
Jeremiah 26:19
Put him at all to death did Hezekiah king of Judah, and all Judah? Did he not fear
Jehovah? yea, he appeaseth the face of Jehovah, and Jehovah repenteth concerning
the evil that He spake against them; and we are doing great evil against our souls.
For more verses, please visit: Abrogations in the Bible.

My Challenge to Christians:
Since the early Christians' and the Disciples' original writings all claim that Jesus
never got crucified, then why couldn't Jehovah Almighty have said something similar
to this:

"...And Jehovah repented from the evil of crucifying the

Messiah...."

Why couldn't this be possible when GOD Almighty saw that the Jews were total
losers and that no Prophet was ever fruitful with them? They were even notorious in
slaying Prophets:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which
are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a
hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (From the KJV Bible,
Matthew 23:37)"
"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of apostles; We
gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is
it that whenever there comes to you an apostle with what ye yourselves desire not, ye
are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! (The
Noble Quran, 2:87)"
"And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so
beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs,
and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better
for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were
covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of God. This
because they went on rejecting the Signs of God and slaying His Messengers
without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing. (The
Noble Quran, 2:61)"
"As to those who deny the Signs of God and in defiance of right, slay the prophets,
and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind, announce to them a grievous
penalty. (The Noble Quran, 3:21)"
"God hath heard the taunt of those who say: "Truly, God is indigent and we are
rich!"- We shall certainly record their word and (their act) of slaying the prophets
in defiance of right, and We shall say: "Taste ye the penalty of the Scorching
Fire! (The Noble Quran, 3:181)"
Show one logical reason that would disprove my challenge here! Didn't Jehovah
Almighty already "repent" many times in the past from Divine Decisions that He has
already taken as we clearly saw above?

6-

The Jews' view on Isaiah 53:

Please visit: The Jews' understanding of Isaiah 53.

7-

Conclusion:

It is quite clear from all of the verses and points above that:

1-

We do not have a single clear-cut statement from the entire Old Testament that
says that:
Jesus will get crucified.
Jesus will resurrect from death.

2-

We have many verses from both the Old and New Testaments that declare
that Jesus Christ will be saved and lifted by the Angels from any and all harm that
his foes will try to throw at him.
With this said, I ask my respected Jewish and Christian readers to reconsider your
beliefs. I ask you to give Islam a serious and honest research and thought. I strongly
recommend starting with the following links:
1. The Overwhelming Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran.
2. What is Islam?

3. The blessed Jesus in Islam.

4. Answering Trinity.
5. Allah is GOD Almighty's Holy Name in the Bible's original
Manuscripts that were discovered - centuries before Islam.
I want to end this article with the following verses from the Holy Quran, and the
Bible's Old and New Testaments:
"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not,
nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (From the NIV Bible,
Deuteronomy 6:4)"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our
God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"
""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is goodexcept God alone."
(From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"
"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his
mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (From the
NIV Bible, Numbers 23:19)"
Indeed, Jesus Christ, the man, is only a Messenger from Allah Almighty, and he was
never crucified.
May Allah Almighty enable you to see the Light and the Truth of Islam. And may
Allah Almighty send His Peace, Mercy and Blessings upon our beloved and blessed
Prophet, Teacher and Role Model, Muhammad. Ameen.

8-

Rebuttals:

The following interactions present detailed analysis on some of the main points of this
article:

(a)-

Detailed rebuttal on Isaiah 53:

The following is an interaction about Isaiah 53 between me and a person by the name
of Nakdimon:

He wrote:
1 - Isaiah 53:3 says that "Jesus" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has
at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed
thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses).
First of all, Isaiah is describing the status of the servant in his suffering. In the case of
Yeshua that would be during his trial and his death.

My response:
Right from the start you've presented your case with erroneous assumptions without
proving them. Before I start thoroughly refuting your points, I must make this
important point:
In the New Testament, Psalm 91 is directly linked to Jesus Christ, in the New
Testament, by Jesus Christ himself, while Isaiah 53 isn't linked to Jesus by anyone.
Psalm 91 said many Prophecies, and they are listed above in this article. Satan, in the
New Testament, even tried to use Psalm 91 to tempt Jesus into testing GOD Almighty

to try to kill himself by throwing himself off of the canyon or mountain to see if GOD
Almighty will be True to His Word and Promise and send down the Angels to lift
Jesus up from death and harm as precisely mentioned in Psalm 91. Psalm 91
further declares that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty for help to protect him from
death, and GOD Almighty will honor him and protect him from death.
By the way, Psalm 91 says that GOD Almighty will not even let Jesus strike his foot
against a rock from harm. This is a symbolic speech that means that GOD Almighty
will not let Jesus get hurt at all. Satan tried to fool Jesus by trying to have Jesus test
GOD Almighty or force GOD Almighty into executing this Promise by trying to jump
off the mountain to see if GOD Almighty will truly send down the Angels to lift Jesus
up or not.
Now certainly, the Prophecy wasn't speaking about Jesus jumping off of a mountain.
It was again a symbolic speech that meant that GOD Almighty will protect Jesus
from death all the way.

Was Psalm 91 for a limited time only?

Some argued that Psalm 91 could've been only till the time before crucifixion, and
that after that, it no longer applies. This is false and is refuted in Psalm 91 itself once
again, because Psalm 91 says clearly that the servant will call upon GOD Almighty in
trouble, and GOD Almighty will save him from death! GOD Almighty will honor
him and protect him, and will not allow for ANY HARM to come near him. The only
time Jesus called upon GOD Almighty to save his life, in the New Testament, was
during the time of crucifixion.
Again, Isaiah 53 is no where linked to Jesus Christ in the New Testament. It is Psalm
91 that is clearly linked. Not only that, but Isaiah 53 has deliberate mistranslations
and misinterpretations in it that we will see below, insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is
Willing).

He wrote:

He carried the suffering alone, with no one to aid or assist him. Second, Im looking at
the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:3 and I see nothing about the servant being despised by all
men. Can you tell me where the Hebrew word for all is in the text? Seeing you
made the claim that Isaiah 53 is mistranslated, I take it your understanding of the text
must be in accordance with what actually is written in the Hebrew text. As far as Im
concerned, the word all isnt even in the text and therefore point 1 is moot!

My response:
The English translations say "all". And even if we don't put "all" in the translation, it
will still mean that since "some" does not exist in the text. Now, "all" here would
mean most or many. But yet, Jesus was very popular by many, and he supposedly
performed his Miracles in front of thousands of eye witnesses, which would've
exploded his popularity among the people in no time.
So in either case, you are refuted.

He wrote:
2 - In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away
one might assume this is the death of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED
not killed. But let us go with killed for your arguments sake. This is not what this
verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They
plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the
verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never killed
And in typical Muslim fashion you read the verse and dont bother to read on what is
said about the same servant:
Verse 8 says he was cut off from the land of the living,

My response:
Again, as I mentioned above in the article, "wounded" here could easily mean felt
hurt spiritually, and not necessarily got physically hurt. Also, Psalm 91 doesn't
mean that not a scratch will be upon Jesus. GOD Almighty's Protection to Jesus from
both harm and death could easily be referring to serious wounds and not minor ones.
But in either way, "wounded" here could easily refer to a spiritual one, because Jesus
was probably upset because his people were about to be doomed to Hell for
Eternity for rejecting his Message.
Now as to him being cut off from the land of the living, here are what your NIV and
YLT Bibles and many others say:

18

From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah 53&version=NIV:

By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.

And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

a. Isaiah 53:8 Or From arrest

b. Isaiah 53:8 Or away. / Yet who of his generation considered / that he was cut off
from the land of the living / for the transgression of my people, / to whom the blow
was due?

2-

From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah
%2053&version=YLT:
8

By restraint and by judgment he hath been taken, And of his generation who doth
meditate, That he hath been cut off from the land of the living? By the transgression of
My people he is plagued,

It's talking about Jesus' imprisonment!

It seems quite clear to me that this quotation is referring to Jesus' arrest and him being
imprisoned! He was taken away from the people and put into isolation. That's how I
clearly see it. In fact, the NIV Bible in its (a) foot note above, explicitly says "From
arrest". It is clearly and indisputably speaking about Jesus' arrest, which doesn't
really prove anything.

He wrote:
Verse 9 speaks of his grave and his death

My response:
Verse 9 speaks about the servant being assigned a grave, which is true. Jesus today
has a grave and it is empty. Nothing refutes Islam here. As to "his death" my
detailed refutation to this lie is further down.

He wrote:
Verse 10 speaks about giving his soul as an asham (guilt offering)

My response:
You are sadly a victim of the false interpretations and lies that are given to you. Here
is what the NIV Bible comments:

110

From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah 53&version=NIV:

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
c. Isaiah 53:10 Hebrew though you make

The Hebrew doesn't say "the LORD makes". It says "you make"! It is talking about
people and not GOD Almighty.
Furthermore, here is what the YLT Bible says:

2-

From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah
%2053&version=YLT:
10

And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul
doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure
of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper.
Do you see any crucifixion in here? It's talking about Jesus getting bruised by his
enemies (again minor injuries that are not fatal), and that it caused to get sick. And
then it says that if his soul were to be a guilt offering, which proves that it wasn't
make a guilt offering.
Your point is again soundly refuted!

He wrote:
Verse 12 says he bore his soul unto death
But none of this seems to face you, doesnt it? And you dont even realise that you
have shot yourself in the foot. You applied this verse to Yeshua and said that this
proves that he was never killed, but only wounded. Herewith you have undercut
everything you have said in your article regarding Psalm 91. You cant have it both
ways. Either Isaiah 53:5 is about Yeshua and he was wounded, according to your

reading, or Psalm 91 is about Yeshua and he was NOT wounded, also according to
your reading. So, what will it be? As far as Im concerned point 2 is moot!

My response:
He poured his soul unto death means that he overpowered death! He killed death. He
defeated death. Sure, he was saved and lifted by GOD Almighty from the cross. He
was victorious over death.

1-

From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah 53&version=YLT

12

Therefore I give a portion to him among the many, And with the mighty he
apportioneth spoil, Because that he exposed to death his soul, And with
transgressors he was numbered, And he the sin of many hath borne, And for
transgressors he intercedeth.
Here we see that Jesus faced death. But he never died! Isaiah 53 doesn't claim it at
all, and Psalm 91 clearly declares that Jesus will cry out to GOD Almighty to protect
him from death, and GOD Almighty will save him and honor him!

He wrote:
3 - Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible
interpretations and answers to this:
Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is
obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and
the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when
he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD,
why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth.
Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again,
Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken

me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the
crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12)
He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging
Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object.
How about a third: He never objected to his accusers. Which is the exact
understanding that becomes obvious to anyone who has any regard for the context and
even for the verse itself. The verse starts out He was oppressed. He was oppressed
by whom? His accusers. It then goes on to say like a lamb that is led to the
slaughter. He was led to his execution by whom? His accusers. He didnt say a word
of defence himself before them. Point 3 is also moot!

My response:
But Jesus in the New Testament did object to the crucifixion. He did beg GOD
Almighty to save him, and according to Psalm 91, GOD Almighty did save him. But
either way, your point here doesn't disprove anything.
As to him being led like a lamb to the slaughter, sure, they wanted to kill him through
crucifixion, but he was never crucified nor killed:
"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That
they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of
Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to
them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but
only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him
up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the
people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his
death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them. (The
Noble Quran, 4:156-159)"
Now compare the Noble Verses to Isaiah 52:13 "...he will be raised and lifted
up....". Notice that Isaiah 52:13 did not say "....he will be RESURRECTED and
lifted up...." Not even once, did the Old Testament predict for the foretold Servant to

be raised to GOD Almighty after death. There absolutely no mention of any sort of
resurrection in the Bible's Old Testament what so ever.
And again, Psalm 91 clearly says that GOD Almighty will protect him and save him
from death, and He will honor him.

He wrote:
4 - Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich.
According to http://scripturetext.com/isaiah/53-9.htm:
in his death" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it
should be translated as "in death", making the word a symbolic one as further
confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon:
in his death
maveth (maw'-veth)
death (natural or violent) [notice not "his death". It only says "death"];
concretely, the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin -(be) dead(-ly), death, die(-d)."
A lot of points here:
FIRST: you look at the definition of the word mawet and then highlight the
figurative sense in your article. But you dont even regard all the other definition
that your source put for you to read.

My response:
This is because no where in the entire Old Testament does it say that the Messiah will
actually die! All you have is figurative expressions about him:

1-

Facing death, or getting exposed to death.

2-

Having a grave assigned to him.

3-

And now, "in death" or "in his death" doesn't at all mean that he will die. Here is
what the NIV Bible says:
From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah 53&version=NIV
9

He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him [1] and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

c. Isaiah 53:10 Hebrew though you make

[1]. This note is mine. In the Arabic it says: , which
literally translates as: And despite this, it delighted Allah to crush him with (ample)
grieve!
Here is how I read these verses:
1. The servant was assigned a grave to die in despite the fact
that he has done no violence.
2. The servant will have ample grieve in him due to the doom of
his people. Remember! Psalm 91:8 says that he will see
the punishment of the wicked with his eyes!
3. GOD Almighty will cause him to suffer (through fear and bad
experience), but will not let him die because He, the
Almighty, Will prolong his life!

Do you see any proof here that the servant will

actually die??
Especially in light of Psalm 91?

He wrote:
SECOND: is there a particular reason why you have scratched his in the in his
death phrase in your article?

My response:
I only quoted what the lexicon said as you also quoted me above. But in either case, I
have proven that the "death" here is definitely symbolic.

He wrote:
THIRD: all the lexicon says about death being figuratively is that it can ALSO be
understood to be figuratively. But its foremost meaning is literal death.

My response:
False! Death throughout the Bible is many times symbolic. It is so symbolic that you
can't even know for sure, from your Bible, whether Hell is an actual Fire or a place of
complete death and cease of existence. This confusion is caused primarily by the too
much use of symbolic speeches for death, grave and other key words.

To the reader, please visit: Sheol in the Bible: Hell and Death.
Also, according to the Lexicon, maweth meant "high places" in other Biblical verses:
in his death-Hebrew, "deaths." Lowth translates, "His tomb"; bamoth, from a
different root, meaning "high places," and so mounds for sepulture (Eze 43:7).
But all the versions oppose this, and the Hebrew hardly admits it. Rather translate,
"after His death" [Hengstenberg]; as we say, "at His death." The plural, "deaths,"
intensifies the force; as Adam by sin "dying died" (Ge 2:17, Margin); that is,
incurred death, physical and spiritual. So Messiah, His substitute, endured death in
both senses; spiritual, during His temporary abandonment by the Father; physical,
when He gave up the ghost.
because-rather, as the sense demands (so in Job 16:17), "although He had done
no," &c. [Hengstenberg], (1Pe 2:20-22; 1Jo 3:5).
violence-that is, wrong.

Notice that Adam did not literally die. The "death" here is symbolic.

Again, do you see any proof here that the servant will
actually die??
Especially in light of Psalm 91?

Please visit:
Evidence from the Greek NT suggesting that "Jesus Barabbas" not "Jesus of
Nazareth" is the one who got crucified!
Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Nazorean.
The early Disciples' writings declare that Jesus never got crucified!

He wrote:
FOURTH: Since you insist that mawet has to be figuratively and cannot in any way
shape or form be literally death, can you tell us what the Hebrew word for literal death
is that Isaiah should have used to give us the impression that this is a physical death
and not a mere figurative death?

My response:
I first of all never said that. But to answer your question, it would have to be the same
word but with FAR MORE CLEARER TEXT to back it up! The delimma of your
Bible is that it contains far too many symbolic terms and words that it is virtually
impossible sometimes to know whether it is to be taken literal or symbolically.
Certainly, with all of the points that I mentioned above, I don't see any direct claim
that the servant will actually die!

He wrote:
FIFTH: you then go to translations that arent translations at all. The NLT and the
CEV are NOT translations, but paraphrases. You object to the word mawet being
translated as death, yet you subsequently run to other translations that dont even
translate the word mawet at all!
SIXTH: Even the YLT translates it incorrectly, since the YLT has an improper
understanding of the word at hand. The YLT reads the word bemotaaw to
understood as bamotaaw. But this reading is untenable, since bamot (high places)
are places where idol worship is being practiced. This is NOT what Isaiah is saying
about the servant.
SEVENTH: The word bemotaaw DOES mean in HIS deaths. The suffix -aaw
is third person singular in the masculine form denoting a plurality of possession.

Then you go on to say:

1. Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily
placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE
was buried under ground as our dead get buried.
2. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED
with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as
recorded in the gospels.
The sheer ignorance you display is astounding. And I read someone praising you for
your scholarship earlier in this thread. Burial in ancient days took place in tombs.
There were two burials: stage one was that the body was placed in a tomb to decay so
that only the bones were left and then stage two would follow, where the bones were
collected out of the tomb and piled up in a small coffin and were buried. So, no,
Yeshua was never buried as our dead get buried, because that was never the method
that people got buried.
As for your second point, since the Hebrew in Isaiah 53 is very poetic, the words of
Isaiah are open to interpretation. The words are just as probable to read, that he was
buried between the wicked, referring to those surrounding graves with their dead. It
can also be referring to his burial by Yosef of Arimathea and all those that were with
him, since the servant is described as the Righteous One that suffers for and bares the
iniquities of the unrighteous multitude. In addition, you dont know that the grave was
in an isolated area since the Gospels dont give us that information. All the Gospels
say is that the grave was new and unused. You are just making this up in order to be
able to raise objections. And with that said, point 4 is moot!

My response:
Your points above are all refuted above, and you're only left with desperation and
confusion. You're trying to force a certain meaning of a word upon a verse, and this

meaning is not supported at all throughout the chapter! Not only that, but the word
itself, muth or mawth, had been used throughout the Bible to mean different things!
In short, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever about the servant will actually
die! On the contrary, we see that GOD Almighty will prolong (extend, make
longer) his life!
Also, as I demonstrated amply and thoroughly above, both Psalm 91 and Isaiah 53 and
52 and other chapters clearly state that the Messiah will be lifted up and honored
and protected from death and harm.
As to the burial, again, you're forcing a certain meaning without giving any regard to
the other meanings of the same word. Yes, Jesus was never actually burried! He was
placed temporarily in a tomb according to your New Testament, which contradicts
Psalm 91 and Isaiah 52, and ironically also Isaiah 53. But regardless, I don't think this
point is that relevant. Defining what burial is, and whether or not placing Jesus in the
tomb is considered burial is irrelevant here. The main point is whether or not he
actually was crucified and whether or not he actually died.

He wrote:
5 - In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live
to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be
satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring
to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that
he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this.
Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so
we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any
child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will
have and see his children.
Here you go again shooting yourself in the other foot. Psalm 91 says that he will not
be harmed, Isaiah 53 says he will be harmed. WHAT WILL IT BE???? And then, if
that wasnt embarrassing enough, you go on to make the following mistakes:

1. You were the one that claim others mistranslate verses. Verse 10 doesnt say that the
servant will see HIS seed (zero) but that he would see seed (zera). It says nothing
about the seed being that of the servant.
2. Just as in other places the word zera can be metaphorical and not referring to
physical offspring of the subject. Such as Psalm 22:31 where YHWH is the subject,
yet no one will say that the seed is His. And in Isaiah 57:4 where falsehood is the
subject, yet no one will say that the seed is the physical product of falsehood.
3. If you had any regard for the context of the verse, you would see that the
prolonging of his days is AFTER HE DIED, which clearly points to a resurrection
from the dead. So this isnt talking about a person that would live happily ever after
and become old. This is talking about a person living after he had died.
So I repeat that your objection point 5 is moot!

My response:
Jesus' suffering was through his grieve with maybe some minor bruises, kicks,
punches and slashes, if any! There is no contradiction here. Psalm 91 clearly
promises that Jesus will cry out to GOD Almighty for help, and GOD Almighty
WILL send down the Angels to protect him from death and harm. "Harm" here
could mean permanent or fatal harming that is too damaging.
Also, the "will" here shows that Psalm 91 is about prophecies that will happen and
will be fulfilled. And according to Islam, yes, Jesus was lifted up and saved as I
demonstrated above.
As to Jesus seeing "seed", whether they are his children or not, the point
about prolonging his life remains, and it proves that he will not die at all.
And as to the prolonging his life is after he dies, this is a perfect example of the type
of hog wash and absurdities that Christians invent and call faith and theology. All of
your points had been based upon speculations and ridiculous absurdities. My
refutations to you, on the other hand, are based on solid proofs that prove that Jesus
was never prophesied to actually die. It just talked about him facing death, but never
actually to die.

He wrote:
6 - In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto death.
To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the
symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really
took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings
in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in
the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this
verse about Jesus' life being poured unto death means to me that Jesus' life will
overpower death! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not
only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and
will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91
also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will
HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ would not have been honored if he have
died the humiliating death of the cross. And certainly, he would not have been
"saved" either by the Angels.
Oh my, where to start:
1. There was no Palestine in the first century, the land was Israel. Palestine was not
invented until well into the second century.
2. The Apocalypse of Peter is NOT an early authentic text, it is a later apocryphal
book!
3. When properly understood, Isaiah 53 ONLY makes sense when applied to the
description of the Messiah in the Gospels
4. You erroneously start with the a-chronological position that is the lens of the Quran
and then look at what the text of Scripture allows for. It never even occurs to you that
the Quran is a false book to begin with and that you have to look at how IT relates to
the previous revelations and NOT the other way around.
5. Your understanding of the servant overpowering death is a correct one. But not as
you put it. The chapter speaks of the rejection of the servant, his suffering, his death
and his resurrection, which is how he conquers death! But you dont allow that clear
reading because of your illogical position that you have to look at what the Quran
allows for and adjust the reading of the text of Isaiah to that.

6. You still havent shown us why we should even entertain the thought that Psalm 91
is specifically about Yeshua or even generally Messianic at all. I have challenged you
about that reading to prove your point. You havent done so to this day. If Psalm is
really indisputably about the Messiah, please provide the evidence to stop this
despute.
7. You wrote: Christ would not have been honored if he have died the humiliating
death of the cross. And certainly, he would not have been "saved" either by the
Angels. Which is exactly why your reading is flawed. You, again, start with the
illogical position that your reading of Psalm 91 is correct (without ANYTHING that
remotely looks like evidence that it is), and then judge the Gospels claims about the
Messiah based on your flawed understanding of ONE unambiguously non-Messianic
Psalm.
8. As for Christ not being honoured if he died. What greater honour is there to be
falsely accused of wrongdoing, then put to death by your accusers and then
completely vindicated by God through resurrection and exaltation above the heavens?
If you have an answer to that, Im eager to see it.
9. You completely miss the purpose for all this suffering of the servant. The verse
says: because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the
transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the
transgressors. Question: What did he intercede for? How did he bare the sins of
many? WHY did he bare the sins of many? Who were the many and the
transgressors? How did he intercede for the transgressors? This verse sums it all up
perfectly: Through the suffering and the death of the Righteous Servant, the sins of
many transgressors will be interceded for. But, of course, you will not allow for this
clear reading, because the Quran doesnt allow you to go there.
Your point 6 is moot!

My response:
1-

The Philistines, and the people of Palestine, existed long before Moses and his
followers ever migrated to Palestine. But this is a seperate topic altogether and is
irrelevant to us here.

2-

I've already proven in the article that the Apocalypse of Peter existed and was very
popular among early Christians.

3-

That's just your opinion and biase.

4-

Another blasphemous and worthless opinion from you.

5-

"Your understanding of the servant overpowering death is a correct one. But not
as you put it." Thank you for openly admitting that my interpretation is correct and is
quite possible! I already demonstrated why my interpretation is the right one above.
But thank you for demonstrating how confusing and ridiculous your Bible's use of the
words.

6 through 9- I already covered all of this in the article above.

But in regards to
Jesus interceding for the transgressors, it could be as little as a simple request or
prayer for them. Did not Jesus, in the New Testament, pray to GOD Almighty and
say: "Father forgive them for they know not"?
As to Jesus bearing the sins of many, it is referring to him being burdened by the
sins and the wickedness of his people. This is why the second half of the sentence
says "and he made intercession for the wicked," because he loved them so much that
he wanted to seek a second chance for them with GOD Almighty. He carried their
sins for them before GOD Almighty to seek intercession for them. This is what the
verse is exactly saying.

Remember that Jesus was sentenced to death! This

is why we see references to death and life in Isaiah 53.
But the main point is that YOU CAN NOT establish that
he actually died!

Please visit:
Evidence from the Greek NT suggesting that "Jesus Barabbas" not "Jesus of
Nazareth" is the one who got crucified!
Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Nazorean.
The early Disciples' writings declare that Jesus never got crucified!

He wrote:
It then seems to me that Muslims will turn facts into fables to keep the truth claims of
the Quran alive. And they will subsequently turn fables into facts to keep the Quran
from being falsified.
Conclusion: Osama, your article on Isaiah 53 is grossly erroneous, contradictory,
disordered, incoherent, childishly written, poorly edited and a scholarly disaster. In
other words, all that work was a total waste of time. It didnt take any effort from my
part to dismantle your silly accusations of mistranslations. Take it off and give it
another go.
Nakdimon

My response:
I invite you and the reader to visit: The Overwhelming Scientific Miracles of the
Noble Quran to see how our Holy Book is indeed a Divine and True Miracle from
GOD Almighty, and is His True and Living Word. You are terrified from Psalm 91
and the interpretations that I gave above about Isaiah 53. Isaiah 52 also says clearly
that he will be raised and lifted. You know well that if we establish that Psalm 91 is
about Jesus Christ, then this will be the end of Christianity! As I mentioned above:

In the New Testament, Psalm 91 is directly linked to Jesus Christ, in the New
Testament, by Jesus Christ himself, while Isaiah 53 isn't linked to Jesus by anyone.
Psalm 91 said many Prophecies, and they are listed above in this article. Satan, in the
New Testament, even tried to use Psalm 91 to tempt Jesus into testing GOD Almighty
to try to kill himself by throwing himself off of the canyon or mountain to see if GOD
Almighty will be True to His Word and Promise and send down the Angels to lift
Jesus up from death and harm as precisely mentioned in Psalm 91. Psalm 91
further declares that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty for help to protect him from
death, and GOD Almighty will honor him and protect him from death.
By the way, Psalm 91 says that GOD Almighty will not even let Jesus strike his foot
against a rock from harm. This is a symbolic speech that means that GOD Almighty
will not let Jesus get hurt at all. Satan tried to fool Jesus by trying to have Jesus test
GOD Almighty or force GOD Almighty into executing this Promise by trying to jump
off the mountain to see if GOD Almighty will truly send down the Angels to lift Jesus
up or not.
Now certainly, the Prophecy wasn't speaking about Jesus jumping off of a mountain.
It was again a symbolic speech that meant that GOD Almighty will protect Jesus
from death all the way.

Was Psalm 91 for a limited time only?

Some argued that Psalm 91 could've been only till the time before crucifixion, and
that after that, it no longer applies. This is false and is refuted in Psalm 91 itself once
again, because Psalm 91 says clearly that the servant will call upon GOD Almighty in
trouble, and GOD Almighty will save him from death! GOD Almighty will honor
him and protect him, and will not allow for ANY HARM to come near him. The only
time Jesus called upon GOD Almighty to save his life, in the New Testament, was
during the time of crucifixion.
Again, Isaiah 53 is no where linked to Jesus Christ in the New Testament. It is Psalm
91 that is clearly linked. Not only that, but Isaiah 53 has deliberate mistranslations
and misinterpretations in it as I demonstrated above.

(b)-

Rebuttal from the New Testament:

Many Christians have already attempted to directly refute this article by presenting
several verses from the Bible's New Testament that say that Jesus:
1. Was crucified.
2. Died on the cross for our sins.
3. Was raised from the dead.
My response:
My simple answer to them is that they have missed the entire point of this article. If
one could prove with ample and indisputable proofs, from the Bible's Old Testament,
that GOD Almighty regarding the foretold Messiah:
1. Will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm
91:3).
2. He will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4).
3. Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5).
4. Christ will then observe with his own eyes the
punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8).
5. No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even
come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him
getting beaten up before crucifixion).

6. GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift
him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will
strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and
punishment.
7. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and
honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these
verses be valid if Christ got crucified.
8. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even
see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the
way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In
Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible
that Jesus Christ had wives and children).
9. His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12).
10.
"Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using
the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it
never meant a literal death.
then one is clearly left with overwhelming proofs that prove that most of the New
Testament is false, especially when we know that the Bible's own theologians
admit that its books and gospels had all been:
1. Written by mysterious men.
2. Written by an unknown number of men.
3. Written in unknown places.
4. Written in unknown dates.
5. Paul never even met Jesus Christ in person while the latter was
on earth. It is falsely claimed that Jesus appeared to Paul while
Paul was on his way to Damascus after the "crucifixion" (Acts

9:2-4. Note: Paul's name used to be Saul. Yet, Paul

admittedly wasn't even sure whether the Holy Spirit was
inspirning him or not).
6. None of the disciples, even in the false writings attributed to
them, ever claimed that their writings were inspired or Divine.
Not only that, but we even ironically see that:
o Luke for instance, wrote his "gospel" for the sake of
another person and not GOD Almighty. See below for
details.
o The disciples even fought with each others [1] [2].
o We read about direct invitations to dinner and other
occasions between the disciples in the "books" [1].
o According to the commentaries below, all of the books of
the bible were altered and corrupted.

The Bible's own theologians even admit that the

bible contains "fictions", its original manuscripts
"had been lost", and contains "fairy tails and
fables".

And, it is also an indisputable fact that the Bible:

1. Is filled with ample contradictions, man's alterations,
corruption, and false scientific absurdities.
2. Is written in third-party narrations, which is why we find in all of
the gospels' titles "This gospel according to....", and
countless verses that speak about the disciples and about their
activities in third-party narrations [1] [2] [3] [4], which proves
that the books and gospels were certainly not written by them.

o This also means that much gossips and exaggerations

and fabrications were made up and inserted into the
books and gospels. So even if some people back then
thought that Jesus was crucified, they in reality never
actually saw it. It could very well be that they've only
heard about it from a neighboring town and believed it.
There are certainly in the books and gospels:
Too much gossips.
Too wide of date gaps by the decades [1] [2] [3] [4]
between when the supposed event took place and
when it was actually written, by hand, in the corrupt
gospels.
Too many unknown people wrote the stories.
Too many Prophecies in the Old Testament that
promise that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, will be saved
from the crucifixion.
Too many mistranslations and desperate
misinterpretations in Isaiah 53 and elsewhere.
o This also means that the books and gospels were
definitely not inspired by GOD Almighty. Paul even
admits that he had his delusions and doubts.

What is the role of the Holy Spirit in Islam?

Why can't we call it GOD?
The sections of this article are:
1- The Role of the Holy Spirit in Islam.
2- The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Bible.
3- The Holy Spirit is a Creation of GOD Almighty and it is under Him just like
the Angels according to the Noble Quran.

Very important section for

Muslims to read!
4567-

Why can't we call it GOD as trinitarians do?

The Miracle of Adam's creation is far greater than Jesus' creation!
Conclusion.
Rebuttals. See rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's responses.

The Universe or the World that is outside our little world on earth has many unknown
mysteries in it. Even in our world we have a whole life that can not be seen by our
naked eyes, and this world functions probably as we do. The danger in interpreting
things, especially when it comes to GOD Almighty, is that because of our natural
human weakness and unlimited desire to explore and discover the "unknown," we
might fall into the sin and blasphemy of insulting GOD Almighty and associating
partners (creations of His) with Him.

"They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by
command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you,
(O men!)" (The Noble Quran, 17:85)"

GOD Almighty is neither a trinity, nor duality, nor plural in

Islam:
"They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god
except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous
penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (The Noble Quran, 5:73)"
"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not,
nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"
"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)! Come to common terms as
between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners
with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than
Allah.' If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims
(bowing to Allah's Will).' (The Noble Quran, 3:64)"

Please visit: What is the Wisdom of Islam?

"Allah" was GOD Almighty's Original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew
and Aramaic sources.

1- The Role of the Holy Spirit

in Islam:

There are two roles that the Holy Spirit is responsible for according to Islam:

1-

It creates our "spirits." Allah Almighty uses it to blow into our mothers'

wombs our human-spirits. That is why abortion is prohibited in Islam, because the
fetus or foetus does have spirit (life) and it is a human being. It's not just a little piece
of unliving flesh:
"But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His
Spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and
understanding): little thanks do ye give! (The Noble Quran, 32:9)"
"When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My
Spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him. (The Noble Quran, 38:72)"
"When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My
Spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him. (The Noble Quran, 15:29)"
"And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our
Spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. (The Noble Quran,
21:91)"
"And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into
(her body) of Our Spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and
of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). (The Noble Quran, 66:12)"

2-

It is used to provide Divine Guidance to the Believers, those whom Allah

Almighty Loves and Favors. It's not just the Holy Spirit that gives Guidance. Angels
too give it:
"Raised high above ranks (or degrees), (He is) the Lord of the Throne (of
Authority): by His Command doth He send the Spirit (of inspiration) to any of
His servants he pleases, that it may warn (men) of the Day of Mutual Meeting,- (The
Noble Quran, 40:15)"

"Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the Revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order
to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims. (The
Noble Quran, 16:102)"
"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in God and the Last Day, loving those
who resist God and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or
their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and
strengthened them with a Spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens
beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). God will be well pleased with
them, and they with Him. They are the Party of God. Truly it is the Party of God that
will achieve Felicity. (The Noble Quran, 58:22)"
"Then will God say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy
mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit, so that thou didst speak
to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and
Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the
figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My
leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold!
thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of
Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the
unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.' (The Noble Quran,
5:110)"

So as you can see, Allah Almighty Created the Holy Spirit for specific functions not
only on this earth, but also perhaps else where in the Universe where we don't know
about. But it is in no way GOD Almighty Himself.

2- The Role of the Holy Spirit

in the Bible:

The Bible is similar to the Noble Quran regarding the role of the Holy Spirit. It never
claimed that the Holy Spirit is GOD Almighty Himself. In section 4 below, you will
see some of the types of the Holy Spirit, or Spirit, that GOD Almighty Created for
Mankind. But for now, let us see what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit:
"When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the
earth. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:30)"
"Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? (From the
NIV Bible, Psalm 139:7)"
"Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on
level ground. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 143:10)"
So far, these verses are talking about the Spirit from GOD Almighty. The first verse
above, Psalm 104:30, perfectly agrees with the Noble Verses above about GOD
Almighty Blowing His Spirit into our mothers' wombs when we're fetus.

So does this now mean that the Holy Spirit,

in the Bible, is part of GOD Almighty?
Absolutely not! The Bible is filled with figurative speech. I've written a detailed
article proving this using many examples. The Holy Spirit mentioned above is a
creation from GOD Almighty. It's purpose is to create our spirits as mentioned in
Psalm 104:30. Another purpose for the Holy Spirit is to Guide the Believers:

1 Samuel 18:10 "The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul.
He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the harp, as he usually did.
Saul had a spear in his hand..." GOD Almighty has an evil spirit? Obviously not,
it's only metaphoric as mentioned above.

1 Samuel 19:9 "But an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul as he was sitting
in his house with his spear in his hand. While David was playing the
harp,..." ANOTHER EVIL SPIRIT FROM GOD?!
1 Kings 22:22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked. " 'I will go out and be a LYING
spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,'
said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
1 Kings 22:23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these
prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."
2 Chronicles 18:21 " 'I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,'
he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
Numbers 24:2 "When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the
Spirit of God came upon him"
Judges 3:10 "The Spirit of the LORD came upon him, so that he became Israel's
judge and went to war. The LORD gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into
the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him."
Judges 6:34 "Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a
trumpet, summoning the Abiezrites to follow him."
Judges 11:29 "Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead
and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against
the Ammonites."
Judges 14:6 "The Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power so that he tore the
lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told
neither his father nor his mother what he had done."
Judges 14:19 "Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. He went
down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings
and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he
went up to his father's house."

Judges 15:14 "As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The
Spirit of the LORD came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like
charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands."
1 Samuel 10:6 "The Spirit of the LORD will come upon you in power, and you will
prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person."
1 Samuel 10:10 "When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the
Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying."
1 Samuel 11:6 "When Saul heard their words, the Spirit of God came upon him in
power, and he burned with anger."
1 Samuel 16:13 "So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of
his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in
power. Samuel then went to Ramah."
Luke 1:35 "The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you (Mary), and
the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be
called the Son of God."
Luke 2:25 "Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and
devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon
him."
There are, as I mentioned, several types of this Spirit as mentioned in section 4
below.

So if Jesus is GOD because the Holy

Spirit came upon him, then the others
mentioned above should also be GOD
Almighty too.

3- The Holy Spirit is a

Creation of GOD Almighty
and it is under Him just like
the Angels according to the
Noble Quran:
Allah Almighty Said:
"The Day that the Spirit and the Angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak
except any who is permitted by (God) Most Gracious, and He will say what is
right. (The Noble Quran, 78:38)"
"A questioner asked about a Penalty to befall- The Unbelievers, the which there is
none to ward off,- (A Penalty) from God, Lord of the Ways of Ascent. The Angels
and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand
years: Therefore do thou hold Patience,- a Patience of beautiful (contentment). (The
Noble Quran, 70:1-5)"
"Therein come down the Angels and the Spirit by God's permission, on every
errand: (The Noble Quran, 97:4)"
"Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to God) Most
Gracious as a servant. He does take an account of them (all), and hath numbered

them (all) exactly. And everyone of them will come to Him singly on the Day of
Judgment. On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will (God) Most
Gracious bestow love. (The Noble Quran, 19:93-96)"
These Noble Verse are the Ultimate knock out to the polytheist trinitarian pagans who
are trying, through their absurd writings, to prove that the Holy Spirit in the Noble
Quran is the other part of Allah Almighty; that he is at least a dual GOD if not a triune
one.
As you clearly see from these Noble Verses and the ones above in the beginning of the
article, trinity and plurality of GOD Almighty is blasphemy! So dear Muslim
brothers and sisters, please be cautious from these satanic deceivers and their new
tricks and desperate false interpretations of the Noble Quran.

4- Why can't we call it GOD

as trinitarians do?
First of all, it is important to know that satan's biggest lie, trinity, is only an
interpretation and a conclusion. There is not a single text in the Bible that says the
Holy Spirit is GOD Almighty, nor does that satanic word, trinity, even exist in the
Bible. People during Constantine's days around year 325, because they were and still
are naturally inclined to idol worship, polytheism and paganism as the Far Eastern
religions are today, they decided to consider Jesus and the Holy Spirit as GOD
Almighty. Satan's deception and evil is overwhelming and powerful. It is no surprise
that people fell for this lie by the billions throughout history, as many more billions
had fell for satan's lies in the Far Eastern pagan religions. Trinity, like I said, doesn't
even exist in the bible. The word doesn't exist anywhere in the book, nor do we have
any text that says Jesus is the Creator of the Universe. The same also goes for the
Holy Spirit.

The reason why Muslims don't call the Holy Spirit as GOD Almighty is because it is
just a creation of GOD Almighty with specific and limited duties as I clearly
demonstrated above from the Noble Quran. Like the Angels and the other Universal
Spirits, the Holy Spirit is unknown to us and we can't fully describe it. But
nonetheless, this doesn't give anyone the right to start getting colorful and smart and
deceive the weak-minded and call it and other creations as GOD Almighty.
I have a long and detailed section that refutes the lie of trinity from the Bible. It's best
if you read it and see the Truth for yourself.
Also, it seems clear that the Bible has several types of Universal Spirits, or Holy
Spirits. For instance, we see a prediction about the "Spirit of Fearing GOD" being
installed in the coming Prophet, Jesus:
Isaiah 11:1-3
1. A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear
fruit.
2. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him (Jesus)-- the Spirit of wisdom and of
understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of
the fear of the LORD (Jesus fearing his GOD)-3. and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with
his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;
As we see in Isaiah 11:1-3, there is:

1- Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding.

2- Spirit of Counsel and of power.
3- Spirit of Knowledge.
4- Spirit of the fear of the LORD.
Also, the verses above say "and he will delight in the fear of the LORD", which

clearly proves that Jesus is under GOD Almighty and can not be equivalent to Him or
part of Him, because GOD Almighty has no fear in Him. He Created fear, or the
Spirit of Fear, and He installs it on whom ever He pleases. But He Himself doesn't
have that Spirit in Him!
The verses above also say "He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide
by what he hears with his ears;...", which further proves that Jesus is not part of GOD
Almighty, because GOD Almighty Speaks and Hears whatever He Pleases!
The Bible's New Testament also records Jesus saying: ""Why do you call
me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is goodexcept God alone." (From the NIV
Bible, Mark 10:18)"

If Jesus doesn't consider himself as "good", then

how can any sane person put him on the same level
as GOD Almighty?
I have yet to see a good answer to this one by any
polytheist trinitarian.

Also, another important point to notice in Mark 10:18 is the word "alone": ""Why do
you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is goodexcept

God

alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

Jesus in this verse is clearly giving exclusivity to GOD Almighty when he said
"alone". If Jesus was truly part of GOD Almighty and/or the trinity lie was true, then
Jesus, to say the least, would not have said that.

My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's

absurdities regarding Mark 10:18 where
Jesus said he was not "good".

Show me in the Bible where Jesus said he was

not GOD!
I sometimes get asked by trinitarians to show them where Jesus said that he WAS
NOT GOD Almighty in the Bible. Ironically, it is like having this scenario:
Q. Show me where John Doe said that he was not the President of the United States!
Show me the quote now!!
A. He just said he works as a computer programmer you brainless idiot! :-)

Jesus said he was not good. He can't possibly say I am your Creator and by the way I
am not good. The question itself shows the complete ignorance about what's written
in the bible and reveals the total blasphemy and darkness that polytheist trinitarian
pagans are living in.
Jesus is not GOD! The GOD Almighty of the Old Testament BOASTS about
Himself! He countlessly reminds the Jews about Worshiping Him and only Him
because He is the "One who took them out of Egypt", and He's the "One who Saved
them from Pharaoh", etc... Not only that, but He also Punishes to death anyone who
profanes His Holy and Blessed Name.
Jesus can not be this Holy and Mighty and Arrogant and Absolute GOD Almighty
when he, for instance, escaped to Egypt for his life from King Herod! The GOD

Almighty's Divine Characteristics in the Old Testament can not in anyway fit Jesus
who is not "good" and who runs for his life from a creation of GOD Almighty.
For more information, please visit: Jesus had no Divine Will according to the New
Testament. How could he be our Creator?

I have ample detailed refutations to the lie of trinity on my site. You can further see
them to clearly understand that GOD Almighty is an Absolute One and only One and
not a unity or trinity as satan claims.

Also visit:
The early Christians rejected Trinity. Early Christians had major problems and
disagreements about who truly Jesus was and whether or not he got crucified or not.
Early Christians' Doctrines confirm Jesus DID NOT GET crucified. See proofs that
the early Christians' scriptures during the 1st and 2nd centuries claimed that GOD
Almighty Saved Jesus from crucifixion.
The "God" title in the Bible was given to others in the Old and New
Testaments. Answering Isaiah 9:6. The "El" (God) title that was given to Jesus in
the Old Testament, and the "HOTHEOS" (God) title in the New Testament, were
given to others before and after Jesus in the Bible. The only UNIQUE title that exists
in the Bible is "Yahweh", which means "The Eternal".

Emanuel, Emmanuel, Yahshua, Yeshua, Yashua, Immanuel and Imanuel. These were
all "Godly" names given to others before and after Jesus in the Bible. None of them is
unique. Only "Yahweh" was GOD Almighty's Unique Name.

5- The miracle of Adam's

creation is far greater than
Jesus' creation!
It is often said by trinitarians that Jesus' miraculous birth is a clear proof that he is the
Creator of the Universe. I often hear this absurd nonsense and easily refute it by
presenting Adam's creation. Adam was created in a much more complex Miracle than
Jesus. At least Jesus had to be formed as a fetus in a woman's womb. Yes she was
virgin when GOD Almighty caused her to get pregnant, but nonetheless, Jesus had to
be formed as a fetus in a human womb like you and me.
Adam on the other hand and Eve also were created in a much more complex Miracle.
Adam was created vitually out of nothing. Eve, his wife, was created from his rib.
These two Miracles are far greater than Jesus' birth.
So the absurd claim about Jesus' birth proving that he is GOD Almighty is soundly
debunked through simple common sense.

Also please visit: None of Jesus' Miracles were unique either.

6- Conclusion:
In the light of the Quranic Noble Verses and the Biblical verses above, the Holy Spirit
is in no way GOD Almighty Himself. To say the least regarding Islam, the lie of
trinity and/or duality of GOD Almighty in Islam does not exist, and it had
been soundly debunked throughout this article! The Christian missionaries' new lies

and tactics about introducing trinity in Islam's Doctrines has been exposed in this
article through the Will and Wisdom of Allah Almighty. All Praise due to Him.
As I demonstrated above using the Noble Quran, the Holy Spirit is only a Creation
from GOD Almighty, and it has specific duties assigned to it. Also in the Day of
Judgement, the Holy Spirit and the Angels will be standing before GOD Almighty
waiting for His Divine Orders and Commands, which indisputably proves that the
Holy Spirit is below Allah Almighty and is in no way part of Him.

What about The Holy Spirit?

By Sami Zaatari

Christians claim that the Holy Spirit is God, this would then mean the Holy Spirit
has to have the qualifications to be God, to be all-knowing, to be all-powerful etc.
However so, when we turn to the Bible we see that the Holy spirit lacks one major
qualification to be God, that is to be all-knowing, according to the Bible the Holy
Spirit is not all-knowing:
Matthew 24: 1-36
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew
him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I
say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us,
when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the
world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall
come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and
rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end
is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be
famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of
sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated
of all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one
another, and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive
many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that
shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be
preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. 15 When ye
therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the
holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into
the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his
house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto
them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight
be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as
was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those
days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall
be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders;
insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you
before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold,
he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and
shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever
the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of
those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall
from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of

the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his
angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four
winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye
know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is
near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these
things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of
heaven, but my Father only
So note, Jesus' discipiles ask him a question about when the signs of the end will
appear, Jesus responds to them by giving them a few signs of the last hour, but he
later on states that no one knows about the last hour but the Father only.
Muslims have always brought these verse up to prove that Jesus himself is not God
neither since he is not all-knowing. Christians have countered this argument by
claiming that Jesus as man did not know the hour, but in his divine state he did
know the hour.
However so, what about the Holy Spirit? Jesus claims that no one but the Father
knows the last hour, this means the Holy Spirit does not know the last hour neither!
Hence the Holy Spirit is not God because it is not all-knowing. What will the
Christian have to say about this? The Holy Spirit was not a God-man like Jesus, the
Holy Spirit never limited himself like Jesus, so what possible explanation could the
Christian give? Why isnt the Holy Spirit all-knowing? Why didnt Jesus say the
only one who knows the last hour is the Holy Spirit and the Father only?
So it is clear, the Holy Spirit is not all knowing according to Jesus, hence the Holy
Spirit is not God because God knows everything especially the last hour!
As for the Christian response on why Jesus isnt all knowing, their response doesnt
work neither. Note what Jesus said:
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

Jesus says that ONLY THE FATHER knows, this means that not even the divine
Jesus knows! If you say that ONLY this person knows something, then it excludes
everyone else. So hence the fact that Jesus said ONLY my Father means that even

the divine Jesus doesnt know the last hour, if the divine Jesus knows the last hour
then Jesus was wrong when he said that ONLY the Father knows. So not only is
the Holy Spirit not all-knowing, but so is the divine Jesus.
However so most Christians have been let of by the Muslim side, everytime
Muslims bring this verse up to show that Jesus isnt God, they dont bring this verse
to prove that the Holy Spirit is not God neither.
So as we see, the Holy Spirit cannot be God, nor can Jesus be God. The only true
God is Allah:
07.187
YUSUFALI: They ask thee about the (final) Hour - when will be its appointed time? Say: "The
knowledge thereof is with my Lord (alone): None but He can reveal as to when it will occur.
Heavy were its burden through the heavens and the earth. Only, all of a sudden will it come to
you." They ask thee as if thou Wert eager in search thereof: Say: "The knowledge thereof is with
Allah (alone), but most men know not."
041.047
YUSUFALI: To Him is referred the Knowledge of the Hour (of Judgment: He knows all): No
date-fruit comes out of its sheath, nor does a female conceive (within her womb) nor bring forth
the Day that (Allah) will propound to them the (question), "Where are the partners (ye attributed
to Me?" They will say, "We do assure thee not one of us can bear witness!"

Praise Allah the true God!

My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "The Quran

Affirms: Paul Passed on the True Gospel of
Christ" article:
This article is a refutation to Sam Shamoun's article, which is located
at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_affirms_paul.htm

By the way, brother Sami Zaatari wrote a rebuttal to Shamoun's article as well at:
Sami Zaatari's rebuttal to Sam Shamouns article The Quran Affirms: The
Quran Affirms: Paul Passed On The True Gospel of Christ.

He wrote:
The Quran Affirms:
Paul Passed On The True Gospel of Christ
Sam Shamoun
It may come as a surprise to some to hear that the Quran implicitly affirms that the
teachings of the Apostle Paul, which has become the foundation of Christianity, are
derived from Christ. In other words, the Quran indirectly testifies that Pauls theology
wasnt something that he simply concocted in order to win converts from the Gentiles,
but came from God through Christ.
Before presenting the evidence, we would first like to clarify our reasons for
appealing to the Quran. We do not believe that the Quran is Gods Word. However, we
do believe that the Quran is an early record of what the first Muslims believed. As
such, the Quran becomes an important source of information for discovering the
official beliefs of the first Muslims.

In light of this, it bears repeating that the Quran testifies that the Christianity
proclaimed by Paul (i.e., "Pauline" Christianity) is true Christianity.

My response:
So far there is nothing of substance to argue about here.

He wrote:
We base our position on the Quranic claim that Christs true believers would prevail
over the unbelievers till the Day of Resurrection:
Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee
(of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee
SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION:
Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein
ye dispute." S. 3:55
O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the
Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We
are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion
disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND
THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14
According to these passages, Allah gave Christs followers the power to prevail over
the disbelievers, and made them superior till the day of resurrection. Yet the ones that
prevailed were the Apostles such as Paul, as well as his followers. This means that if
the Quran is correct, then Pauls message is the truth since it has become dominant
and has prevailed over all other opposing messages.
Sayyid Qutb comments on S. 3:55:
... It was also the will of God to elevate the followers of Jesus above the unbelievers
until the Day of Resurrection ...
It is not difficult, on the other hand, to explain Gods statement that He had placed
those who follow Jesus above the unbelievers, and that this elevation continues until

the Day of Resurrection. Those who follow Jesus are the ones who believe in Gods
true religion, Islam, or surrender to God. Every prophet is fully aware of the true
nature of this religion. Every messenger preached the same religion and everyone who
truly believes in the Divine faith believes in it. These believers are indeed far superior
to the unbelievers according to Gods measure, and they will continue to be so until
the Day of Judgement. Moreover, they prove their superiority in our practical life
every time they confront the forces of un-faith with the true nature of faith and the
reality of following Gods messengers. The Divine faith is one, as preached by Jesus,
son of Mary, as preached by every messenger sent before him and by the messenger
sent after him. Those who follow Muhammad at the same time follow all the
messengers sent by God, starting with Adam until the last messenger. (In the Shade of
the Quran - Fi Zilal al-Quran, Volume 2, Surah 3, translated and edited by Adil
Salahi & Ashur Shamis [The Islamic Foundation, 2000], pp. 97-98)
The problem with Qutbs claim is that the Christian believers that prevailed over all
were not Muslims and their message certainly wasnt Islam. Hence, either the true
followers of Christ were vanquished, thus falsifying the Quran which says that they
would dominate. Or, the Quran is false since it contradicts the true message of Christs
followers.

My response:
I've refuted your points in great details using ample Arabic analysis from Lisan AlArab dictionary at:
Did Noble Verses 3:55 and 61:14 give false prophecies about Jesus' true
followers being above the blasphemers (trinitarians and other infidels)?

He wrote:
Maulana Muhammad Ali writes regarding S. 3:55:
... This verse contains four promises relating to Jesus triumph over his enemies as
against their plans ... And the fourth promise is that those who follow Jesus shall be
made dominant over his rejectors till the day of Judgment. The truth of this
fourth prophecy is witnessed TO THIS DAY in the dominance of the Christians
over the Jews. (Ali,Holy Quran [Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc.
USA, 1995], pp. 147-148, fn. 439; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Here are his statements regarding S. 61:14:

... The description applies to the triumph of the teachings of Christ over those
who opposed the dissemination of his teachings, and speaks prophetically of the
ultimate triumph of Islam over all other religions of the world. (Ibid., p. 1058, fn.
2501; bold emphasis ours)
Ali fails to mention that the teachings that dominated were those passed on by Paul
(which is actually the same message preached by Christ and the other disciples)!
A. Yusuf Ali, in his translation The Holy Quran - Text and Commentary, p. 1543,
footnote 5448, states:
A portion of the Children of Israel - the ones that really cared for Truth - believed in
Jesus and followed his guidance. But the greater portion of them were hard-hearted,
and remained in their beaten track of formalism and false racial pride. The
majority seemed at first to have the upper hand when they thought they had crucified
Jesus and killed his Message. But they were soon brought to their senses. Jerusalem
was destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70 and the Jews have been scattered ever since. "The
Wandering Jew" has become a bye-word in many literatures. On the other hand,
those who followed Jesus PERMEATED the Roman Empire, brought many new
races within their circle, and through the Roman Empire, Christianity became
the predominant religion of the world until the advent of Islam ... (bold and
capital emphasis ours)
What this Ali failed to note is that the form of Christianity that permeated the Roman
Empire is what Muslims degradingly call "Pauline" Christianity. Hence, that Pauls
message dominated is a sign that his Gospel was that which God entrusted to Christs
true followers. If it were argued that Pauls version of Christianity is an aberration of
the truth, this then means that the Quran is wrong for claiming that God had caused
Christs true followers to prevail. It would mean that Paul was able to thwart Allahs
purposes, being able to prevent the true believers from dominating over their enemies.
Here are the late S. Abu Ala Maududis comments on S. 61:14:
... Those who disbelieved in Jesus Christ are the Jews, and those who believed him are
the Christians as well as the Muslims, and Allah granted them domination over the
disbelievers of Christ. This is meant to requires [sic] the Muslims that just as the
believers of Christ have dominated over his disbelievers in the past, so will the
believers of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be Allahs peace) prevail over
disbelievers. (Meaning of the Quran, Volume V, english rendering by A.A. Kamal,

M.A. [Islamic Publications (Pvt.) Limited, 13-E, Shahalam Market, Lahore-8

Pakistan], p. 516, fn. 21; underline emphasis ours)
As we had noted earlier, the obvious problem with Maududis explanation is that the
message of Christs true believers directly contradicts the message of Islam. That is,
unless one wants to claim that Christs true message got distorted and a false message
prevailed over it, a claim which then contradicts the plain reading of the passages in
question.
As Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi, while commenting on the last part of S. 61:14,
states:
... (and neither the Messenger NOR THE MESSAGE could be destroyed). (Tafsir-UlQuran Translation and Commentary of the Holy Quran, Volume IV [Darul-Ishaat
Urdu Bazar, Karachu-1, Pakistan; First edition: 1991], p. 356, fn. 270; capital
emphasis ours)
Again, if "Pauline" Christianity is a corruption of Jesus true teachings then the
message was destroyed and Allah failed to bring to pass what he said would happen!
Noted Muslim commentator Ibn Kathirs statements are most interesting.
Commenting on S. 3:54, he writes:
"This is what happened. When Allah raised Isa to heaven, his followers divided into
sects and groups. Some of them believed in what Allah sent Isa as, a servant of Allah,
His Messenger, and the son of His female-servant.
However, some of them went to the extreme over Isa, believing that he was the son of
Allah. Some of them said that Isa was Allah Himself, while others said that he was
one of a Trinity. Allah mentioned these false creeds in the Quran and refuted them.
The Christians remained like this until the third century CE, when a Greek king
called, Constantine, became a Christian for the purpose of destroying Christianity.
Constantine was either a philosopher, or he was just plain ignorant. Constantine
changed the religion of Isa by adding to it and deleting from it. He established the
rituals of Christianity and the so-called Great Trust which is in fact the Great
Treachery. He also allowed them to eat the meat of swine, changed the direction of the
prayer that Isa established to the east, built churches for Isa, and added ten days to
the fast as compensation for a sin that he committed, as claimed. So the religion of
Isa became the religion of Constantine, who built more than twelve thousand
churches, temples and monasteries for the Christians as well as the city that bears his
name, Constantinople (Istanbul). THROUGHOUT THIS TIME, the Christians had
the upper hand and dominated the Jews. ALLAH AIDED THEM AGAINST

THE JEWS BECAUSE THEY USED TO BE CLOSER TO THE TRUTH THAN

THE JEWS, even though both groups were and still are disbelievers, may Allahs
curse descend on them." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 2, Parts 3, 4, & 5
(Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147), abridged by a group of
scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri
[Darussalam Publishers & Distributors Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First
Edition: March 2000], p. 171; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Ibn Kathirs explanation doesnt solve the problem since if the Quran is correct then
the Christianity that Ibn Kathir attacks is indeed the truth. Otherwise, Ibn Kathirs
comments imply that Allah either allowed a false form of Christianity to prevail, or
failed to grant Christs true believers dominance over those seeking to pervert the true
teachings of Christ!
Hence, Muslims are in a dilemma that they cannot easily resolve. Namely, to accept
the Quran is to accept "Pauline" Christianity. Yet to accept "Pauline" Christianity is to
reject the Quran, since the Quran contradicts the core teaching of Paul as has been
preserved in the pages of the Holy Bible and amongst true Christians historically.
A Muslim may wish to argue that these verses refer to Muhammad and the Muslims as
those who truly believe in Christ and dominate till the Resurrection Day. This
explanation fails to resolve the issue. The passages do not say that Christs followers
would only prevail from the time of Muhammads advent, but from the time that
Christ was taken to God and unto the Day of Resurrection.

My response:
We first of all need to know who Jesus is in Islam. Jesus peace be upon him was
Allah Almighty's Messenger to the People of Israel. His Message was simple: "They
do blaspheme who say: 'God is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O Children of
Israel ! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' (The Noble Quran, 5:72)"
"And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere
disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say,
"We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came
down to you; Our God and your God is one; and it is to Him we bow (in
Islam)." (The Noble Quran, 29:46)"

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor
is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"
"Then Praise be to Allah, Lord of the heavens and Lord of the earth- Lord and
Cherisher of all the worlds! To Him be Glory throughout the heavens and the earth:
and He is Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom!. (The Noble Quran, 45:36-37)"
"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)! Come to common terms as
between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners
with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than
Allah.' If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims
(bowing to Allah's Will).' (The Noble Quran, 3:64)"
Please visit: What is the Wisdom of Islam?
The early Christians did not believe in the polytheist trinity paganism. Even
Christians today don't agree on who Jesus really is. They all say "Jesus is the Son of
God", but when one tries to dig deeper into what "Son of God" really means, he will
find clear contradictions and conflicts among them. Some believe that Jesus is the
Creater of the Universe, and some believe that Jesus is a Creation from GOD
Almighty.
Trinity did not prevail in this world, and it will never prevail in this world. Up until
the 1400s, Islam had the dominating power over the world. The Islamic Empire
stretched from the borders of France all the way to the borders of China! The
followers of Jesus are the modern Muslims of today. Anyone who believes in GOD
Almighty as the Absolute One and True Living LORD, then he is a follower of Jesus
peace be upon him.
Let us look at what Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran about the polytheist
pagan trinity that Paul invented:
"They do blaspheme who say: 'God is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O
Children of Israel ! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' (The Noble Quran, 5:72 )"
"They do blaspheme who say God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god
except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous
penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (The Noble Quran, 5:73)"
Jesus himself used the word "Muslim" during his ministry:

From www.answering-christianity.com/luke6_40.htm:

Jesus using the word "Muslim" in Luke 6:40:

This article was give to me by brother Tamer, may Allah Almighty always be pleased
with him.
Let us look at Luke 6:40 from my N.I.V. Bible "A student is not above his teacher, but
everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher."

From me, Osama Abdallah:

Evidence from the English translation of Luke 6:40 that further prove that the
word 'Muslim' was used by Jesus:
Luke 6:40 (KJV)
40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
Luke 6:40 (Darby)
40 The disciple is not above his teacher, but every one that is perfected shall be as his teacher.
Luke 6:40 (Young's Literal Translation)
40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one perfected shall be as his teacher.
Luke 6:40 (21st Century King James Version)
40 The disciple is not above his master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
Luke 6:40 (American Standard Version)
40 The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his
teacher.
The perfection here means a spiritual one. What the verse is saying is that knowledge is not
what matters! The teacher or master is higher in knowledge than his student. But the student
can be as high as his teacher, or even higher, by being a true 'MUSHLAM' or Muslim, a
spiritually perfect and well-disciplined person!

"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo."
Taken from the Aramaic bible society. See also the PDF file at this link.
This is further proved by the Arabic translation:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:40;&version=28;

The Arabic word "baseera", which is what is falsely translated for "MUSHLAM" by the
deceiving polytheist trinitarian pagans from the Arabic translators, actually means "having
spiritual knowledge or discipline"! Even in their twisted translation, the word clearly is used
for spiritual discipline and not just technical knowledge of our worldly knowledge today such
as Science or Mathematics or anything else.
In other words:

1-

My math teacher can be more knowledgeable than me in math, but with

my baseera (being a very good Muslim that is), I can be an equal or even better person than
him or her!!

2-

My master, if I were a slave, can be higher than me in authority and worldly reputation, but
with my baseera (with my Islam), I can be an equal or even better person than him!!

Even their wrong word clearly supports Islam, because the verse is crystal clear in Aramaic!!
The most accurate and honest translation for the Aramaic Mushlam is none other than the
Arabic Muslim, which means Believer!

Continuing with brother Tamer's article....

Let us look at what Jesus said in Luke 6:40 in the language of Aramaic translated into
Hebrew as shown below:

"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo."
Taken from the Aramaic bible society. See also the PDF file at this link.
Note: Aramaic and Hebrew are read from right to left, which is opposite to English.
Translation in English: "No student can be above his teacher, but everyone that is
a MUSLIM, can be as his teacher."
Important Note: The Hebrew word "Mushlam" comes from the root "Sh L M".
"Shalom" which comes from the same root means "peace". The Arabic word
"Muslim" comes from the root "S L M". "Salam" means "peace". "Salem" means
"safe". Also taken from the Aramaic bible
society, http://home.comcast.net/~rzuberi/index_files/page0005.htm,
andhttp://home.comcast.net/~rzuberi/articles/Being_Like_The_Teacher.pdf.
Another Important Note: In case the pdf file gets lost from the "home.comcast.net"
site, I have uploaded it to my site. You can access a copy of on my site at this link.
Also, please visit: Jesus peace be upon him spoke Aramaic during his ministry.
See Jesus predicting the coming of Muhammad after him in the Bible.

Most recent discoveries:

Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archiologist, found more than twenty
churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Forth Century we found houses
in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :"Bism Allah al
Rahman al Rahim" which showed that Christians were the first to use this name,
Allah for GOD Almighty, which proves that the name of GOD Almighty in the Noble
Quran, "Allah" is the correct one. This also proves to us that the Bible is not all
found. There are still missing pieces in it that disprove trinity.
For more details and proofs, visit: Jewish and Christian Arabs used the word "Allah"
for GOD before Islam. See historical and archeological evidence and
most recent discoveries in the Middle East.

Paul was not a follower of Jesus. Paul never even met Jesus in person. Paul actually
used to persecute Christians. While going on his way to Damascus, he claimed that
Jesus appeared to him and anointed him to be "his apostle". Paul, however, had
proven himself to be a big liar in the Bible. Please visit:
Famous Theologians and Historians believe that Paul was not truthful.
How can you say that the Bible has corruption in it when Saint Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16
clearly said that "All Scripture is God-breathed"?
Paul, Peter and John are in clear contradiction with each others regarding the
disbelieving husbands to believing wives!
Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.
Is circumcision allowed or not allowed in the Bible? See the clear contradiction
between Jesus and Paul.

He wrote:

This is perhaps why men such as Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari and al-Thalabi could
view Paul in such a positive light. They seemingly realized that Paul had a tremendous
influence in the growth and spread of Christianity, and had been sovereignly used by
God as his instrument of domination over the unbelievers. (see the article The
Apostles of Christ: Messengers of God or Mere Disciples?)
To summarize the Islamic evidence, we discovered that
The Quran records the domination of Christs true believers over the
disbelievers.
This domination would continue till the Day of Resurrection.
Pauls message dominated and became superior to all other opposing messages.
This implies that if the Quran is right then Pauls message must be correct.
Yet, these factors introduce the following problems for the Muslims:
The Quran contradicts the core teachings of the Apostle Paul as well as the
message of the Holy Bible as a whole.
Since the Quran and early Muslim commentators clearly testify to the accuracy
and legitimacy of Pauls preaching, this means that the Quran cannot be the
word of God. Rather, it must be the word of fallible men such as Muhammad
and/or others.
This also implies that the author(s) of the Quran was (were) unaware of the true
message of the Holy Bible and of the Apostle Paul, and thought that it agreed
with his (their) own preaching. The author(s) presumably thought that in
acknowledging the testimony of the Holy Bible he (they) would therefore be
legitimizing the prophetic claims of Muhammad. Had he (they) been aware of
the true message of the Holy Bible the author(s) might not have given so much
credence to both Paul and the Holy Bible.
This concludes our paper. We pray that our risen Lord and immortal Savior will use
this to bring precious Muslims into his glorious love and truth. Amen. Come Lord
Jesus, come. We will always love you by Gods all powerful, sovereign grace.

My response:
Like I mentioned above, the early Christians rejected trinity. Islam also dominated a
large part of the world for so many centuries. Allah Almighty also cursed in the Noble
Quran those who follow the trinity lie. Therefore, trinity is not supported in the Noble
Quran, and the followers of Jesus in the Noble Quran are those who Worship Allah
Almighty as the Absolute One and True Living GOD Almighty. They are the
Muslims. And like I showed above, Jesus himself used the word "Muslim" during his
ministry.