Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
From http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks1.htm:
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.
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
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:
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
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
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:
... 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)"
8- Rebuttals.
(a)- Detailed rebuttal on Isaiah 53.
(b)- Rebuttal from the New Testament.
1-
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-
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)-
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.
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.
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).
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."
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".
- 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.
(b)-
(c)-
2-
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)-
1-
2-
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
4-
"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
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.
Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked
and the rich. Jesus was buried alone.
6-
7-
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
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
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:
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.
3-
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,"
37
and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they
have pierced."
38
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?
1-
Not break a single bone from either one of his hands or one of his feet?
2-
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-
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.
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-
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:
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-
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?
8-
Rebuttals:
The following interactions present detailed analysis on some of the main points of this
article:
(a)-
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.
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
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 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
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,
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-
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-
2-
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
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.
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.
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-
4-
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.
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.
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.
(b)-
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
Muslims to read!
4567-
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)"
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-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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)"
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
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.
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.
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!"
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)
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:
"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-
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!
"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.
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.