A Critique on the Crucifixion

Difficulties, Contradictions and Problems in the Crucifixion tale

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)


“…but they killed him not, nor crucified him…”(Qur’an 4:157)

Jesus’ Crucifixion is the bedrock of mainstream Christianity. It is such an important foundation in Christianity that even sects that have departed from “Orthodoxy” such as Unitarianism and the Jehovah’s Witness have retained the crucifixion. Paul says, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor. 15:14). Without crucifixion there is no resurrection. Because the preaching of Christianity is based on the resurrection it goes without saying that the crucifixion is equally significant and important which is also why the official symbol in mainstream Christianity is the cross.

It is often claimed in Evangelical circles and by Christian missionaries that there is a consensus among scholars and historians both conservative and liberal that Jesus certainly died on the cross. This is misleading. There are scholars who argue that because there is such a paucity in early reliable historical records attesting to Jesus’ existence  that must mean that he is a myth, a legend, a fiction. Granted that the circle of scholars of this persuasion is small in number that does not discount the fact that they are up and about. Tom Harpur who was professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe(The Pagan Christ), Bruno Bauer (Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin), Earl Doherty(The Jesus Puzzle), Prof. G.A. Wells(The Historical Evidence for Jesus), Prof. Michael Martin(The Case Against Christianity) are some of the scholars who have questioned Jesus’ existence. Thus to continue claiming that all scholars both liberal and conservative agree on the crucifixion is untrue. Undoubtedly, a vast majority of scholars say the crucifixion happened, but not without  serious qualification. They do not say it as a fact, but rather as a probable occurence. Historians involved in this area of study base their judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data. Using the historical method scholars comb through available  historical materials, assess them and thereafter produce what they think to be the most probable conclusion. Historians using the critical historical method do not recognise supernatural events because they are the least probable occurences which is why God cannot be in the equation hence discounting both resurrection and Jesus’ ascent to heaven as historical(at least according to the historical method). A person living 2000 years ago would be regarded as dead because it is highly improbable(or impossible) for a man to live for centuries.  Because Jesus lived around 2000 years ago historians conclude that he must have died.  This is of course according to the critical historical method. The real question that historians are interested in is how he died.  And for this they look at the historical records surrounding the person Jesus. According to their perspective based on their research the most probable explanation or cause for Jesus’ death is the crucifixion. Thus many modern (non-Muslim) historians have no qualms over Jesus’ death  itself not because they think that Jesus was factually and definitely crucified but because a man living 2000 years ago cannot still be alive.  In this article we will be looking closely at some of those major data and sources used to propose that Jesus died by crucifixion. God willing, we will illustrate  by proposing nine contentions(using historical and theological arguments) that the historical material employed are insufficient in  proving the crucifixion and that Jesus certainly did not die the shameful death of a crucified man.

How much do we know about Jesus? As we have mentioned before there is a paucity of material pertaining to him. This fact is noted in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible.

“However desirable it might be to have available records of Jesus’ words and deeds that were made during his lifeimte, we must acknowledge that we have none.”[1] (emphasis added)

Reliable knowledge of Jesus, his life and teaching, is limited. The years of his adolescence and young manhood are shrouded in silence, and his active ministry of not over two or three years is treated only briefly in the Gospels. There are only four short accounts of Jesus’ ministry, and these record what people though of his as well as what he did and taught. Beyond the narrative of his teachings and actions nothing is known of his personality, physical appearance, or bearing that might account for the remarkable charismatic power which he held over his disciples and the masses who at one time followed him.” [2] (emphasis added)

Contention 1: The passion narratives are inconsistent which means they cannot be trusted.

If one were to compare the four gospels analytically(in a parallel fashion) one will find that there are many inconsistencies between the narratives given. However, in fairness it should be noted that there are fewer contradictions between Matthew and Mark. Some stories are found in one or two of the gospels but not in the others for example Jesus being troubled  prior to the crucifixion is mentioned in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke and John. The excuse given by apologists is that the authors simply did not mention them as they had limited space to write and so had to make their writing more focused on what they thought were important(or perhaps they were not aware of their occurrence) and this does not actually give rise to contradiction. This excuse is untenable when the Gospels and external historical evidence are studied carefully as we shall see in due course. The Christian apologist would argue that in general there are many similarities between the passion narratives in the four Gospels. That’s all fine. But what about those serious discrepancies that we do find in the Gospels? Can two conflicting stories presented in two different books be equally and simultaneously true? According to Christian apologists they can. What they will do is try to harmonise the conflicting stories by building a new story where both are included  into one story with some suitable modifications for coherence purposes.  Is this a legitimate recourse? The eminent Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman, the prodige of one of the greatest New Testament scholars of America, Bruce Metzger in Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted says that such a course of action does injustice to the gospels. Michael L. White in Scripting Jesus calls this ‘the Car Wreck Fallacy’. Harmonising the conflicting gospel accounts does violence to what the authors and their work intend to convey. Each author wrote with a specific intention in mind and a specific audience in sight hence mixing and mashing one author’s narrative with the other is unjustified. By merging and mashing together differing reports together from different gospels they are in reality reconstructing a gospel that none of the gospel writers had in mind. By doing such a thing they have in reality introduced a brand new gospel. Let us now consider some of those contradictions.

1. When was Jesus arrested? Was it on the Passover or before it?

The four Gospels place the crucifixion on a Friday (Mark 15:42, Matthew 27:62, Luke 23:54 and John 19:31), however John departs from the synoptics(Matthew, Mark and Luke) in that the incident occured on the day of rest of the Passover, that is one day earlier. The Synoptics on the other hand asserts that the Friday on which the crucifixion happened was the first day of the Passover.  Jewish law stipulates that the lamb of the Passover should be slaughtered in the evening of the 14th of the first month of the Jewish calender, Nisan. The lamb is then eaten on the same night as mentioned in Exodus 12:1-8). Based on Genesis 1:5 the Jews measure a day as that from sunset to sunset. So that means the night of the Passover is the start of the 15th of Nisan. According to the synoptics Jesus was arrested after having the Passover meal with his disciples which was the first night of the first day of the Passover (Mark 14:12-46, Matthew 26:19-50 and Luke 22:7-54). He was then crucified in the morning of the 15th of Nisan.

John on the other hand has it that Jesus was arrested and taken to Pilate early in the morning of the day of rest of the Passover which means that he was arrested the night before (john 18:28). The crucifixion then according to John’s time line should be placed on the 14th of Nisan some hours after the arrest. Thus according to John the day of the crucifixion was the Friday during the day of the rest of the Passover as opposed to the synoptics that place it on the first day of the feast.  In conclusion, John’s arrest and crucifixion is a day earlier than the synoptics version.  There is a reason why John has made the crucifixion coincide with the time of the slaughter of Passover lambs. John’s account is theologically motivated. He presents Jesus in the first chapter of his book as the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29 and 1:36). John wishes to pass Jesus off as the true Passover lamb. He makes Jesus fulfill a prophecy (John 19:36) with a description that the Old Testament uses for the Passover lamb. Because John’s timeline corresponds intimately with his Crucifixion theology some scholars have been led to dismiss his narrative as fiction. [3]

2. How many Passovers were there? Was it one or three?

Whilst the synoptics mention only one Passover that is the one during which Jesus was crucified John deviates by mentioning two extra Passovers (John 2:13, 2:23 and 6:4).

3. When was Jesus’ trial? Was it at night or in the morning?

Both Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus was arrested and put on trial before the Jewish council at night (Matthew 26:31-57 and Mark 14:30-53. John asserts the same in John 18:28. Luke on the other hand departs from them and says that the trial was in the morning in Luke 22:66 and omits any mention of a night trial.

4. Who questioned Jesus? Was it the Sanhedrin or the high priest?

According to Mark 14:53-55 and Matthew 26:57-59 it was the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus in the house of the high priest, Caiaphas. Who were the Sanhedrin? The Sanhedrin was a Jewish council that dealt with religious and Jewish legal matters consisting of 71 members. How is it that 71 people fitted in Caiaphas’ house 2000 years ago is a bit of a stretch unless he lived in a palace as Geza Vermes mentions in The Passion. Luke 22:66 says, “At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them.” One can understand from this that Luke may very well be referring to the Sanhedrin as Matthew and Mark does. But John departing from the synoptics claims that Jesus was first brought to the house of Annas, “Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.”(John 18:12-13) Only after he had been interrogated by Annas that he was then taken to Caiaphas(John 18:24). There are mutiple problems with these narratives. Firstly, the Sanhedrin is totally missing in John’s account even though he says earlier in John 11:47-53 that Caiaphas led the Sanhedrin in planning to kill Jesus. If John saw it fit to mention the Sanhedrin’s plan to kill him why not also mention that Jesus was interrogated? The question then is was Jesus ever tried by the Sanhedrin as claimed by the synoptics? Who’s telling the truth? We will address this in more detail later. The second problem that we find is that two high priests(kohen gadol) are mentioned together namely, Annas and Caiaphas. Annas is addressed as the high priest repeatedly in John 18:15-22 and in the same passage in verse 24 Caiaphas is also described as the high priest. This cannot be true because the Old Testament , Josephus, Philo and Rabbinic material all agree that the position of high priest can be occupied by one person only at any one time.  The eminent authority in Jewish studies, Geza Vermes notes this and says that John’s claim in John 11:49,51 and John 18:13 that the high priesthood went through annual rotations is unhistorical.[4]

5. Who sentenced Jesus to capital punishment?

Matthew 26:66, Mark 14:64, Luke 24:20 and Acts 13:27 says that the Sanhedrin passed the death penalty on Jesus implying that they have the capacity to sentence someone to die. John departs from that and makes it clear that the Sanhedrin and the Jews in general have no legal power at all to put someone to death, “Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.’ The Jews said to him, ‘It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.'”(John 18:31) Looking at that verse carefully another problem arises. How is it that Pilate the Roman prefect who had been ruling the Jews for around four years and in charge of legal affairs did not even know that the Jews were not permitted to sentence anyone to death?

6. How many people tried Jesus?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agree that Jesus was brought before Pilate to be sentenced, but Luke deviating from the other three gospels adds something extra in that Jesus was also tried by Herod in Luke 23:6-12. In this episode Jesus gets mocked and ridiculed by Herod. Why is this event completely omitted in all the other three gospels? Could it be that it did not happen and was simply Luke’s invention to add more drama to the narrative?

7. How did Judas the traitor die?

This is quite relevant to the passion narratives because it happened during the same time and that he is charged with the responsibility of deserting and betraying Jesus to the Jewish leaders for some money(Mark 14:43-46, Matthew 26:47-50, Luke 22:47-54 and John 18:2-12).  According to Matthew the following is what happened to Judas Iscariot,

“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

“Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me. ” (Matthew 27:3-10)

The passage cites a prophecy that is attributed to the prophet Jeremiah. No such prophecy exists in Jeremiah. Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the problem by mixing together Jeremiah 18:2-3 and Zechariah 11:12-13. This is utterly disingenuous because anyone can see that the author cited Jeremiah, not Jeremiah and Zechariah. Prof. Raymond E. Brown in his volume  1 or his 2 volume work on the crucifixion says about this confusion, “That conglomeration of words cited by Matt exists nowhere in the standard OT.” [5] The same is noted by Geza Vermes that, “The quotation is said to be of Jeremiah, but it is invented or is more exactly a garbled mixture of Zechariah 11:12-13 and Heremiah 18-2-3, 36:6-15.” [6] In the passage in Matthew Judas’ manner of death is mentioned, that is,  he hanged himself. Acts 1:18-20 relates the same incident, but the details differ greatly,

“(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,” ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,'[d] and, ” ‘May another take his place of leadership.” (Acts 1:18-20)

As we can see the above passage presents a totally different picture of Judas’ death. Whilst Matthew says he hanged himself, Acts on the other hand says he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. If the latter is true why did Matthew not include it? Isn’t such a dramatic and gruesome death of a traitor to one’s Lord and Master worth mentioning? We can also see that a totally different prophecy is cited for the incident if it ever happened in the first place. One would think that the same prophecy would be applied for the same incident like the incident of Jesus going into Jerusalem on a donkey whereby the same prophecy from Zechariah 9:9 is quoted(though with variants). This means that the two authors are retelling different stories. The only real similitude is the person involved.

8. False promise by Jesus?

In Luke 23:43 we have Jesus making a promise to his fellow crucified victim,

“Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.””

This was during the crucifixion. According to the Creed of the Apostles which may well have been based on 1 Peter 3:18-20 Jesus went down to hell after the crucifixion, “Jesus who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, buried and descended into hell.” (Apostles’ Creed) Further more, in John 20:17 Jesus says, “Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” Where is the father? The Father is in heaven according to Matthew 6:9-13 and Matthew 23:9. What was the promise again? The promise was that he would see Jesus in heaven today i.e. on Friday. Apostles’ Creed says Jesus went to hell after he died and John 20:17 says Jesus did not yet ascend to the Father(in heaven) on Sunday. It is clearly a contradiction.

9. Who and where were the women at the crucifixion?

Matthew 27:56 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee were watching at the scene. Mark 15:40 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses and Salome were watching. Luke 23:49 says, “And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things.” If Luke is correct then all the witnesses including the women were standing at a distance watching the incident. John goes against the rest and claims that Jesus’ mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdelene were standing close to the cross. It was so clase that Jesus was able to communicate with his mother.(John 19:25-26). Did you also notice that the women were all MARYS? Were there no other name among Jewish women other than Mary? How very coincidental that all the women mentioned are Marys. Is it easier to say it’s a coincidence or that they are inventions of the authors?

10. Who did Jesus appear to?

According to Paul, Jesus appeared to the 12:

that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. ” (1 Corinthians 15:4-8)

In the Gospels we know that there were no 12 disciples soon after the crucifixion because Judas had gone. Some apologists might suggest that the 12 is merely an “appellation” and did not designate the actual remaining number of disciples. This is inconsistent with the fact that the Gospels treat the disciples as 11 when Judas was no longer around. Had it been an appellation i.e. a special designation for the disciples despite their actual number the gospel authors would have retained the 12, but they did not. There were 11 left so they were called the eleven and not the twelve e.g. Mark 16:14.

Luke 24:33- 43 tells us that Jesus appeared to the 11 and ate honeycomb and broiled fish in their midst in the upper room. However, John 20:24 tells us that Thomas was not around when Jesus appeared i.e. as related in Luke 24:33-43. That means that the number of disciples that were present should have been TEN at the most and not eleven as Luke 24:33 claims! Paul says 12, Luke says 11 and John asserts 10. Which one is true? Scholars like Dr. William Lane Craig have tried to reconcile this conundrum by proposing a sequence of events where Jesus is suggested to have first appeared in Jerusalem then the disciples went back to Galilee and after that they return to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Is this harmonising attempt coherent? One of the most eminent Bible scholars and praised as such by Dr. William Lane Craig, Prof. Raymond E. Brown disagrees. Such a sequential harmonising according to Prof. Raymond E. Brown, “does violence to the Gospel evidence”. [7] Raymond E. Brown in the same book postulates that the several appearances recorded in the gospels are actually fictitious inventions stemming from one single appearance.

11. Jesus’ trial could not have taken place at night and concluded with a verdict in the same night.

The Mishnah says about capital punishment:

“Civil suits are tried by day, and concluded at night. But capital charges must be tried by day and concluded by day. Civil suits can be concluded on the same day, whether for acquittal or condemnation; capital charges may be concluded on the same day with a favourable verdict; but only on the morrow with an unfavourable verdict. Therefore trials are not held on the eve of a sabbath or festival. In civil suits, and in cases of cleanness and uncleanness, we begin with [the opinion of] the most eminent [of the judges]; whereas in capital charges, we commence with [the opinion of] those on the side [benches]. (Sanh. 32a)

Matthew 26:31-57, Mark 14:30-53 and John 18:28 claim that Jesus’ trial took place at night. According to the Jewish law as we have read above this cannot be true unless the Jewish leaders and the high priest were altogether ignorant or perhaps they were involved in an evil conspiracy where they bent their own law? If that is true why isn’t the error of their actions exposed and rebuked in the gospels? Why did Jesus not himself question the manner in which he was tried being himself a learned Jewish teacher? As  Prof. Craig A. Evans tells us in his Context, Family and Formation in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible p. 19, “Jesus is frequently called ‘Rabbi’ or ‘Rabboni’, or its Greek equivalents ‘master’ (epistata) or ‘teacher’ (didaskalos).” So, Jesus was no doubt a Rabbi(Mark 12:29). Being a Rabbi and learned in the Jewish law he would have questioned the Jewish leaders concerning the unconstsitutional nocturnal trial. But, no such disagreement is found either from Jesus or from anyone else in the entire New Testament. Apologists might argue that the Mishnah(from which the Sanhedrin tractate comes) is not a valid proof source for trials during Jesus’ time because of its redaction date which is about 200 C.E. However, as pointed out by Geza Vermes the Mishnah is not the only evidence there is.

“…the Mishnah passage is not the only relevant evidence. First-century AD sources, such as Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls, also testify to the illegality of court business on Sabbaths/feast days. Thus Philo writes: ‘Let us not…abrogate the laws laid down for its [the Sabbath’s] observance and…institute [on that day] proceedings in court’ (Migration of Abraham 91), and the Damascus Document from Qumran states just as firmly that ‘no one shall judge’ on the Sabbath day (10:17-18).” [8]

The Sanhedrin trial is filled with problems and inconsistencies. Vermes says:

“…the reliability of the account of Jesus’ appearance before the Sanhedrin and his condemnation to death is seriously undermined by the repeated contradictions and historical and legal improbabilities of Mark’s account, which has been copied in substance by Matthew. Luke and John further muddy the waters.” [9]

Earlier we argued against the location of Jesus trial which took place at the house of the high priest. This is very unusual in Jewish tradition since the place of assembly was the hall of cut stone located within the temple as Geza Vermes notes in his The Passion and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz mentions their The Historical Jesus.

12. Charges levelled against Jesus have no basis

None of the charges levelled against Jesus during the night trial would amount to the death penalty in Jewish law. Neither claiming to be the son of God or the Messiah are blasphemies deserving of death in Jewish tradition. Geza Vermes explains:

“…no Jewish law of any age suggests that messianic claim amounted to the crime of blasphemy… It would therefore seem that the Synoptic tale of the night proceedings against Jesus lacks real foundation.” [10]

It would appear that the authors of the Gospel took their own Christology behind the title ‘Son of God’ as meaning something more than just a person having a special bond with God, but one who shares in some way the divine nature developed during the last decades of the first century  and weaved it in their night trial narratives.[11] It seems the gospel authors have yet again invented history. Faith historicised.

13. Barabbas the mythical rebel

The story of the release of Barabbas in conjunction with the Passover is related by all four gospels. The alleged event is known as the Paschal privilege where the Roman governor supposedly has the right to offer a criminal amnesty. The incident is related in Matthew 15:6-11, Matthew 27:15-20, Luke 23:17-19 and John 39-40. There are serious problems to this story. Firstly, the narratives themselves differ in detail, that is, in the manner the offer is conveyed. Secondly, in Mark and Matthew the people persuaded by the chief priests present shouted and clamoured for the death and crucifixion of Jesus. The story line is simply absurd. How is it that this popular religious figure, Jesus whose image was widespread as a miracle worker, a compassionate teacher, and a Prophet loved by many even by those in Jerusalem(the chief priests were afraid of the people revolting  if they apprehended Jesus because of his popularity Mark 14:1-2, Matthew 26:3-5 and Luke 22:2) became the outcast and hated criminal in a matter of minutes in the eyes of the same Jewish population before Pilate? Geza Vermes remarks, “It is hard, indeed almost impossible, to imagine a nationalist Jewish crowd encouraging the Romans to kill one of their own countrymen.” [12]

Thirdly, if Barabbas was a real person then he was in prison for insurrection according to the gospels. That means he was already found and declared guilty. Why would such a troublemaker be freed by Pilate whose job was exactly to keep and maintain Roman sovereignty in his jurisdiction? The problem is compounded further when we take into consideration that Jesus was found faultless and innocent by Pilate. How is it that someone found guilty is given the opportunity to freedom and not someone who is found innocent? It is senseless.

Last but not least, there is no indication outside of the Gospels that there was such a person as Barabbas or even such a thing as a special Passover amnesty afforded by the Prefect. Geza Vermes states clearly, ” such an amnesty is nowhere mentioned outside the Gospels, not even in Josephus, who was so well informed about first-century AD matters, and the evangelists themselves fail to agree on its precise nature… Hence the historicity of the amnesty is questionable.” [13]

There are many more discrepencies, contradictions and difficulties in the Gospels concerning the crucifixion and other things besides. However, the 13 inconsistencies that we have contended are sufficient in proving our point. The anonymous gospels are far from consistent in their narratives. If we can’t establish which incident actually happened how can we be certain that any of them happened at all? In order to have a reasonable commentary on the events one should be able to know what truly happened first. The inconsistencies give proof to the Qur’anic declaration concerning the crucifixion that, “…those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but they only follow conjecture.” (Qur’an 4:157)

Christian apologists tend to argue that the crucifixion is true based on a multitude of independent multiple attestations. This brings us to our second contention.

Contention 2: There are no reliable multiple independent attestions

The following are some of the historical sources appealed to by Christians that are considered independent historical attestations.

1. Flavius Josephus.

Flavius Josephus is popularly quoted by Christians to substantiate the crucifixion tale. They quote the very famous passage that is attributed to him known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3) [14]

Scholars have long suspected the above to be spurious. Questions regarding the authenticity of this particular passage have been raised since the 16th century as Raymond Brown notes in his volume one of The Death of the Messiah on page 374. Today it is widely  rejected as a forgery attributed to Josephus. Raymond E. Brown on the same page of his work cites a number of authorities who rejected the text as outright inauthentic which includes Battifol, Birdsall, Burkitt, Conzelmann, Hahn, L. Hermann, Lagrange, Norden and Zeitlin. It is historically known that Josephus was a Jew and died as one. He did not convert to Christianity at any point in time. It goes without saying that being a Jew he would have hardly attested Jesus’ Christhood and his rising again fulfilling the prophecies of the prophets of old. Had he believed in such Christian doctrines he would have been a Christian. The early church father Origen explicitly states in Against Celcus, 1.47 and in his Commentary on Matthew, 10.17 that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Had the passage been authentically written by Josephus surely the early church fathers of the second and third centuries quoted him especially when they cite him regarding Old Testament interpretations. The earliest citation of the text is from the fourth century by Eusebius of Caesaria in Demonstratio Evangelica or  The Proof of the Gospel. That’s over 400 years of a gap which is more than enough time to fake a document. Impossible to be traced back to Josephus it is indeed a fake. It is noteworthy that Raymond E. Brown prefers the position of partial-interpolation where Josephus is thought to have written the basic text and the special references to Jesus e.g. as Messiah are later Christian interpolations. In discussing this however, Brown does not offer any definite substantiation for this position. In fact, he merely describes it as “plausible”. The Testimonium  is found in all the mss. of Ant. [15] and none omits the special references to Christ which leads us to contend that the whole text must have been forged.

2. Cornelius Tacitus.

The work involved is Tacitus’ Annals. This work was written in approximately 117 CE. In it Jesus’ execution is mentioned.

“Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus…” (Annals, 15.44) [16]

Several scholars have questioned the authenticity of this passage. It is claimed that Tacitus made use of Roman documents in reporting the above. If that were true, he would surely have not made the error about Pilate. Pilate is identified as a procurator rather than a prefect in the text. This is a historical problem that has been noted by scholars. Those two positions are not one and the same. A procurator is a financial administrator(civilian) whilst a prefect is a military position. Historically Judea was ruled by a prefect appointed by Rome from 6 CE to around 44 CE. It was after that period that the governor was procurator. In fact, an inscription that was found at Caesarea Maritima, ludaea there is an inscription dedicated to Pilate which reads, “praefectus iudaeae” which means “prefect of Judea”.  Raymond E. Brown notes, “In calling Pilate a procurator Tacitus was reflecting the later terminology of the 1st cent., still in vogue at the time of his writing.” [17]Secondly, official Roman documents could not possibly have referred to Jesus as “Christus” as G.A. Wells points out in The Historical Evidence for Jesus.[18] So from where did Tacitus get his information? Well, isn’t it obvious? Christians were already quite known then. He could have easily gotten his information from the Christians as R.T France, E.P. Sanders, G.A. Wells and others have pointed out. This means that even if Tacitus authentically wrote the information, he did so almost 100 years after the happenings and he did not rely on independent sources.

Other historical sources that Christians appeal to include Lucian of Samosata’s The Passing of Peregrinus, Mara Bar Serapion, Thallus and Jewish Rabbinic literature. All these historical sources are late second to third century cources that can hardly be described as independent. And many of them suffer from historical inaccuracies as we have seen inTacitus’ Annals.

Contention 3: There are no prophecies that truly predict the crucifixion

An often quoted passage in support of the crucifixion is Isaiah 53 which we have discussed in another article. Please click on A Critical Study of Isaiah 53 to read it. We have also seen earlier that the Gospel writers committed blunders in trying to fit Jesus into what they percieved as prophecies from the Old Testament.

We will later show that there are clear prophecies and promises in the Old Testament that should ensure Jesus’ safety from any harm that his enemies could have wished to inflict upon him.

Contention 4: Jesus could not have been crucified outside of Jerusalem.

We will prove from Jesus’ own words that he could not have possibly suffered at the hands of his enemies. Let us begin with the proof text for our premise namely Luke 13:33.

The context of Luke 13:33 starts at verse 31. It says that the Pharisees came to Jesus and warns him of an impending threat from Herod who supposedly wants him dead. In response to this warning Jesus responds,

12. Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.

13. In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day – for surely no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem!

The last part in verse 13 is a clear negation by Jesus regarding the impossibility of a Prophet to die outside of Jerusalem. The prophet that is mentioned is a reference to his own person. The verse itself and the context does not allow a different interpretation unless the Christians wish to tell us that Moses died in Jerusalem which he obviously did not. There may be Christians out there who think that Jesus was not a prophet(and I have met quite a few myself). Let us assure them that Jesus was indeed a prophet according to their own books:

“And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.”(Matthew 21:11)

“But Jesus said to them, “A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country and his own house.”(Matthew 13:57)

“But Jesus said to them, “A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”(Mark 6:4)

“Then he said, “Assuredly, I say to you, no PROPHET is accepted in his own country.”(Luke 4:24)

“And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:”(Luke 24:19)

“And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us”(Luke 7:16)

“Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.”(John 7:40)

Some of you may raise the question, “If Jesus was speaking about himself in Luke 13:33 surely he would have said something like , ‘I cannot die outside of Jerusalem’ instead of ‘a prophet cannot die outside of Jeruslame’ which is in the third person.” That is a legitimate question. And the answer to that is given in the verses you just read i.e. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4 and Luke 4:24. They are all relating about the same incident and Jesus is clearly addressing himself as a prophet in the third person. Thus the question raised has secured our premise further, alhamdulillah.

Clutching at straws some Christians(of whom I have met) may try to insist that the verse does not totally negate the possibility of Jesus dying outside of Jerusalem and that it just says that he cannot like in the KJV, NASB and other translations of the verse. First of all, granted that the KJV and the NASB have translated the verses correctly what does the word ‘cannot’ mean? If I said, “I cannot go to the USA” does it mean I can? It’s a silly question I know, but the question raised by the Christians in this regard is also silly. The word cannot is a negation which means not able to or not possible. In fact, that is what the Greek says. The verse reads:

πλὴν δεῖ με σήμερον καὶ αὔριον καὶ τῇ ἐχομένῃ πορεύεσθαι, ὅτι οκ νδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω Ἱερουσαλήμ

The words in question are the ones highlighted which transliterates into ou endechetai. The particle ou is a negative and it can mean no, not or even never. The verb enedechetai means possible. Joined together it means not possible. Therefore, Young’s Literal Translation correctly translates the verse thus:

“but it behoveth me to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following, to go on, because it is not possible for a prophet to perish out of Jerusalem.”

God’s Word Translation also translates it in the following manner:

“But I must be on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day. It’s not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem.”

So “cannot” as found in the KJV, NASB etc. or “no prophet can” as found in the NIV translation for the verse really means NOT POSSIBLE.

Before we move on let us reiterate it one more time lest we forget, that is, the prophet mentioned in verse 13 is no other than Jesus himself.

By now, you must be wondering what the point is. In fact, some of you may be sitting in your chair saying to the screen, “Okay, so what if Jesus said he cannot die outside of Jerusalem? What does that prove?” Well, the point will be unveiled very shortly.

Where did Jesus allegedly die?

According to the records that we have in the gospels he supposedly died at a place called Golgotha in Aramaic, Calvary in Latin and Kranious Topos in Greek(Matthew 27:23, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33 and John 19:17). Let’s just take one of the four.

“And when they came to a place called Gol’gotha (which means the place of a skull),”

So, according to the verse Jesus was taken to Golgotha to be crucified.

Where was Golgotha?

According to an article by Keith W. Stump published on two Christian websites http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/golgotha.htm and http://www.towards-success.com/dejnarde_files/golgotha.htm Golgotha was outside of Jerusalem.

“What does the Bible tell us about the location? The Gospel writers call the place where Jesus was crucified Golgotha—an Aramaic word meaning “the skull.” Calvary is the Latin form of the word. Scripture does not reveal the precise location of Golgotha. It simply states that Jesus’ crucifixion took place outside the city of Jerusalem, though near it (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12). Jewish law did not permit executions and burials inside the city.” (emphasis added)

HarperCollins’ Bible Dictionary informs:

“John 19:20 and Jewish and Roman execution customs indicate that it was located outside of Jerusalem’s city walls”. [19]

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible tells us:

“Jewish and Roman law would likely have required capital punishment to take place outside the city walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12).” [20]

According to Encyclopedia Brittanica Golgotha was outside Jerusalem:

“The hill of execution was outside the city walls of Jerusalem, apparently near a road and not far from the sepulchre where Jesus was buried.” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/238060/Golgotha) (emphasis added)

According to Online Etymology Dictionary it was near Jerusalem:

hill near Jerusalem,” via L. and Gk., from Aramaic gulgulta, lit. “place of the skull,” from Heb. gulgoleth “skull.” So called in reference to its shape (see Calvary)” (GOLGOTHA.” Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 23 Apr. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/GOLGOTHA>.) (emphasis added)

In John 19:20 which is cited by Keith W. Stump in his article we read that the place was NEAR the city(Jerusalem):

“Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.”

The word is eggus which literally means near. What does it mean to be near? Near indicates being outside! If you said, “I am near my house.” What does it mean? Does it mean you’re inside your house? NO. It means you’re in close proximity to your house, but it is outside. If you said that you are near New York, you are not inside it but rather outside. So according to John Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha which was near(outside) of Jerusalem. If that is true then it is in clear opposition to Jesus’ own testimony in Luke 13:33 which we read and analysed earlier. There are really only two options for reconciliation.

1. Jesus lied in Luke 13:33

2. Jesus did not lie in Luke 13:33.

In Matthew 7:24 Jesus says,”Everyone, them, who listens to this sayings of Mine and puts them into practice will be like a thoughtful man who built his house on the rock.” Who is your master? Is he Jesus or the anonymous author of John? My master is Jesus and I would like to follow and believe in what he says. What about you? Luke 13:33 clearly denies what is told about his alleged crucifixion. Unless he died in Jerusalem the whole incident was no incident at all. In fact, it was a lie. Jesus was never crucified nor killed as the Qur’an clearly declares in Chapter 4.

Contention 5: People were forgiven before Jesus so his sacrifice was not necessary for atonement. If his sacrifice was not necessary then there was no point behind the crucifixion.

In Jonah 3 an entire community is forgiven by God when they repented of their sins.

“Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. ” (2 Chronicles 7:14)

The above verse clearly shows that what enables forgiveness is sincere repentence. This is further affirmed in Jeremiah 36:3, ““Perhaps the people of Judah will repent when they hear again all the terrible things I have planned for them. Then I will be able to forgive their sins and wrongdoings.”

A Jesus is not required for atonement.

Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin. By fearing the Lord people avoid evil.” (Proverbs 16:6)

“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6)

Because it was not necessary for Jesus to sacrifice himself to enable atonement of sins God would have saved him. More on this later.

Related to this is the matter concerning Jesus’ sinlessness and perfection. Christians contend that Jesus is the only one who can die for mankind because of his uniqueness as the sinless and perfect man.

How can such a claim be true when Job is clearly described as PERFECT in Job 2:3?

“Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.”

Most Bible translators render the highlighted part in like manner. However, the KJV has retained the meaning of perfectness,

“And the LORD said to Satan, Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that fears God, and eschews evil? and still he holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause.” (KJV)

The same is retained in the following versions.

“And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” (American Standard Version)

“And Jehovah said to Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and abstaineth from evil? and still he remaineth firm in his integrity, though thou movedst me against him, to swallow him up without cause.”(Darby Bible Translation)

“And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and art upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.”(English Revised Version)

“And the LORD said to Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.”(Webster’s Bible Translation)

In fact the Bible in Basic English renders it in the following manner,

“And the Lord said to the Satan, Have you taken note of my servant Job, for there is no one like him on the earth, a man without sin and upright, fearing God and keeping himself far from evil? and he still keeps his righteousness, though you have been moving me to send destruction on him without cause.”

The Arabic Bible uses the word كامل KAMIL which means COMPLETE or could even mean PERFECT. The original Hebrew word is tam which does mean perfect, sinless and blameless.

A similar word is found in Deuteronomy 32:4, “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” The word used here is tamiym which means the same thing as tam.

So if God had required a perfect man to die in order to save mankind he could have used Job or even Zecharias and Elizabeth both of whom are described as righteous and blameless(sinless) in Luke 1:6. Jesus’ candidacy and the crucifixion are both absolutely unnecessary.

Contention 6: Jesus was a very righteous man and a great prophet so it would have been in God’s interest to save him especially if he had asked.

Jesus prayed earnestly to God to save him!

“And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”(Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42)

Jesus was asking to be removed from being harmed by his enemies. Make no mistake about it! Even Christian commentaries admit that the cup in the verse symbolises the impending hardships. The People’s New Testament commentary says, “This cup is the betrayal, the trial, the mocking, the scourging, the cross, and all besides which our thoughts cannot reach.”

Was Jesus’ prayer answered? If he was a righteous servant it should have been answered according to the Old Testament.

The following are verses and prophecies assuring Jesus’ safety:

“If you would earnestly seek God and make your supplication to the Almighty, if you were pure and upright, surely now He would awake for you, and propser your rightful habitation.” (Job 8:5-6)

“But I call upon God, and the Lord will save me.” (Psalms 55:16)

“..what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you do care for him?(Psalms 8:4)

Who is the son of man if not Jesus who is described as just that 83 times in the New Testament!

“ The Lord answer you in the day of trouble.” (Psalms 20:1)

“When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears, and deliver them out of all their troubles.”((Psalms 34:17)

“Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all.” (Psalms 34:19)

“The Lord delivers him in the day of troubles.” (Psalms 41:1)

The lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land, you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.” (Psalms 41:2)

“For he stands at the right hand of the needy, to save him from those who condemn him to death.” (Psalms 109:31)

“He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.” (Psalms 145:19)

Jesus himself taught that if a righteous person prayed the Father would answer in Matthew 6:6, Matthew 7:7-8 and  Matthew 18:19. Jesus said explicitly,

“if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” (Matthew 21:22)

God hears the worshipper as John 9:31.

Was Jesus’ prayer answered? Amazingly, the Bible says yes and in the book of Hebrews at that!

During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death,  and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered.” (Hebrews 5:7-8)

The above is clear indication that Jesus’ fervent prayer was answered. The following Bible commentary by Dr. Paul Ellingworth on Hebrews 5:7 explains the meaning of the verse in detail concluding with the Orthodox Christian position, but at the same time admits that the verse likely means Jesus was asking to be saved from death/being killed:

“σωζω here has the literal meaning of preservation or rescue from physical death (cf. Σωτηρία in 11:7), not the extended meaning of preservation from eternal death, as in 7:25… σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου may mean either “prevent him from being killed” (cf. Pr. 15:24; Jas. 5:20; 2 Clem. 16:4) or “rescue him by raising him out of death” (cf. Wis. 14:4; Jn. 12:27; absolutely, Lk. 8:50; more generally, of rescue from the threat of death, Ps. 107:20 [LXX 106:19]; Ho. 13:14; Sir. 51:12). If the reference is specifically to Gethsemane, the first alternative is more likely…”[21] (emphasis added)

Contention 7: The crucifixion is unjustified.

According to Christian apologists Jesus’ death was in accordance with Roman law which stipulated that rebels should be executed. Jesus according to the same apologists was a rebel since he called himself the King of the Jews thus usurping Roman authority. The following is an explanation concerning the Crucifixion method by Joel B. Green who is professor of New Testament interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary:

“In the context of any discussion of the material aspects of crucifixion it is crucial to remember that Rome did not embrace crucifixion as its method of choice for execution on account of the excruciating pain it caused. The acts of the crucifixion resulted in little blood loss and death came slowly, as the body succumbed to shock. This form of capital punishment was savage and heinous, but for other reasons. Executed publicly, situated at a major crossroads or on a well-trafficked artery, devoid of clothing, left to be eaten by birds and beasts, victims of crucifixion were subject to optimal, unmitigated, vicious ridicule.

Rome did not expose its own citizens to this form of heinous punishment, but reserved crucifixion above all for those who resisted imperial rule.” [22]

Generally, modern scholars argue that Pilate’s active part in Jesus’ punishment was justified due to a political threat that he posed by claiming that he ‘s the King of the Jews. There is no explicit verse anywhere in the Bible where Jesus unequivocally claimed to be a king of anyone, let alone a king of an entire nation. Jesus was not the military messiah that the Jews were anticipating. He was the spiritual messiah that was generally passive in his mission. In the gospel records there is no indication that Jesus intended to usurp the Roman empire. He gave them no justified reason to have him executed as a rebel. In fact, when asked about the accusation thrown against him concerning his alleged worldly kingship he denied it.

“Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?” Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” “What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.” (John 18:33-38)

In the above passage we see Jesus clearly denying a worldly kingship and instead affirmed a spiritual one(Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17). As a result of this Jesus was found innocent by Pilate. His verdict was, “I FIND NO BASIS FOR A CHARGE AGAINST HIM.” The same verdict is found in Luke 23 repeated twice in the same passage(verses 14-22)!

In John 6:14-15 we are told that when Jesus thought that people wanted to make him King he withdrew into seclusion to the mountain.

The following passage is very telling,

“When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” When Peter said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.” (Matthew 17:24–27)

Jesus obeyed the regulations of Rome and taught his followers to pay taxes. In fact, we have the famous statement from Jesus,

“Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.” (Mark 12:17)

How can such an obedient subject of the Roman empire be condemned to a rebel’s death? Geza Vermes says, “contrary to the claim of some contemporary New Testament interpreters, the general context of the portrait of Jesus in the Synoptics and in the rest of the New Testament shows that he was not a pretender to the throne of David, or a would-be leader of a revolt against Rome.” [23]

Christian apologists may offer a counterargument by arguing that it did not really matter what Jesus himself personally believed or practiced, but what the Jews told Pilate. However, if Pilate had believed the Jews in that Jesus was a threat to Rome surely his followers would have been persecuted too. But nothing like that happened in ensuing years. People were allowed to convert to Christianity and follow Jesus’ teachings as Bart D. Ehrman mentions in Misquoting Jesus. The earliest official Christian persecution by Rome was during Emperor Nero’s rule around 54 to 68 CE. However, this was not because of the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jewish leaders. The idea that a very powerful Roman prefect could be pressured into believing tall tales after he himself found the person innocent is fantastically absurd. As a matter of fact, John says that he did not fall for the accusations and continued to affirm Jesus’ innocence, “Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.”(John 19:6) Were Roman prefects so callous and unjust? This is akin to a modern judge in a court of law declaring a person innocent, but sending him to the gallows regardless. Does that make sense? It is absolutely absurd!

As we have seen there is no sufficient or satisfactory reason for Jesus’ crucifixion, which must lead us to the conclusion that many of the tales surrounding his trials have been fabricated. What else have been fabricated?

Contention 8: The earliest Gospel has no passion narrative in it!

You might be saying that I’ve gone bonkers for claiming that the earliest Gospel has no passion narrative. You might think I’m talking about Mark which is considered by scholars to be the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written. No, I am not talking about Mark. Rather, I am talking about a Gospel that predates even the Gospel of Mark. I’m talking about the lost Gospel “Q”. To understand what the Gospel Q is one needs to understand some background concerning the first three Gospels. The first three Gospels are labelled as Synoptics which means “seen together” the reason of which is due to the fact that the passages and pericopes in the three bear numerous stark similarities. Biblical scholars considered this as the “Synoptic Problem”. The conclusion that they arrived at was that both Matthew and Luke relied heavily on a common source namely, the Gospel according to Mark. However, Mark cannot account for a considerable number of verses that are found in Matthew and Luke. These are verses that Matthew and Luke share in common, but are missing in Mark. To solve this issue German Biblical scholars postulated another source that Matthew and Luke relied upon which they have simply dubbed “Q” which is short for the German word Quelle meaning source. Though there are scholars who contest the existence of “Q”, the majority accept it as the most tenable explanation for the parallels found between Matthew and Luke that are not accounted for in Mark. Most scholars have dated the “Q” Gospel to approximately 50 CE predating the Canonical Gospels.[24]

By comparing Matthew and Luke closely the scholars have reconstructed this “Q” Gospel. What does it contain? A lot of things, but most importantly is that it has no passion or resurrection narrative at all. One of the foremost scholars on the “Q” Gospel notes, “…the Sayings Gospel has no passion narrative or resurrection stories…”[25]. Bart D. Ehrman also notes, “Most striking was the circumstance that in none of the Q materials (that is, in none of the passages found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark) is there an account of Jesus’ death and resurrection.” [26]
Gospel “Q” came about around the same time Paul was writing his letters and teaching the theology of the crucifixion and resurrection as essential to the Christian faith. If the crucifixion truly happened and indeed necessary for salvation and that Jesus definitely raised from the dead why is it not mentioned in this gospel that was made usedby Matthew and Luke? We contend that the reason why it does not contain either passion or resurrection narrative is because Jesus was not killed on the cross and they are indeed unessential to the real faith that Jesus brought.

Contention 9: Even if (for the sake of argument) Jesus was put on the cross he could not have died so fast!

The Roman method of crucifixion was not to cause instant or immediate death of the victim. Historically, the Roman method was to fix someone upon the cross either by tying or nailing and to allow him to die a shameful and above all else a slow painful, agonising death. The Gospel narratives give conflicting time lines for Jesus’ crucifixion and time of expiration/death, but none exceed 6 hours. What exactly was the blow that caused his death if indeed he was put on the cross? In discussing this issue Prof. Raymond E. Brown says clearly, “Crucifixion pierces no vital organ, and so inevitably one must wonder what physical or organic factor caused Jesus to die. The extremely brief Gospel descriptions of the death of Jesus are of little help in answering this question.” [27] Christian apologists are fond of citing some medical professionals who have delved into this matter to argue for the impossibility of surviving the cross and  finallyaffirm Jesus’ death on it. Regarding this Raymond E. Brown says, “In my judgment the major defect of most of the studies I have reported on thus far is that they were written by doctors who did not stick to their trade and let a literalistic understanding of the Gospel accounts influence their judgments on the physical cause of death of Jesus. There is no evidence that the evangelists personally knew anything about that matter…” [28]

The conclusion:

The crucifixion of Jesus is a tale that is indeed fascinating and quite fitting for a bedtime story and can be safely placed in the fiction section in any library or bookstore. We are satisfied with concluding that the cumulative 9 contentions proposed in this critique soundly and sufficiently disprove the tale of Jesus’ crucifixion as historical fact and it should instead be called the CRUCIFICTION(coined by the late Ahmed Deedat). We submit that the Qur’an is absolutely right when it says,

“And their saying: “We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God.” They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. ” (4:157).

References:

[1] Howard Clark Kee, Eric M. Meyers, John Rogerson, Anthony J. Saldarini. The Cambridge Companion to the Bible(1997). Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press. pp. 447

[2] Obert C. Tanner, Lewis M. Rogers, Sterling M. McMurrin. Toward Understanding the New Testament(1990). Salt Lake City: Signature Books. pp. 30

[3] Ed Parish Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus(1995). England: Penguin Books. pp. 72

[4] Geza Vermes. The Changing Faces of Jesus(2000). London, England: Penguin Books. pp. 43

[5] Raymond E. Brown. The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 1(1994). New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. pp. 648

[6] Geza Vermes. The Passion(2005). London, England: Penguin Books. pp. 53

[7] Raymond E. Brown. An Introduction to the New Testament(1997). New York: Doubleday.

[8] Geza Vermes. The Passion(2005). Op.Cit. pp. 100

[9] Ibid. pp. 49

[10] Ibid. pp. 102

[11] Ibid. pp. 103

[12] Ibid. pp. 61

[13] Ibid. pp. 95

[14] Flavius Josephus. Jewish Antiquities(1998). Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

[15] Raymond E. Brown. Op. Cit. (1997).

[16] Tacitus. Annals (1962). London: William Heinmann Ltd.

[17] G.A. Wells. The Historical Evidence for Jesus(1988). London, England: Prometheus Books. pp. 16-17

[18] Raymond E. Brown. Op. Cit. (1997). pp. 337

[19] Paul J. Achtemeier. HarperCollins’ Bible Dictionary(1996). HarperCollins. pp. 164

[20] Watson E. Mills. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible(1990). Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. pp. 128

[21] Paul Ellingworth. The Epistle to the Hebrews, A Commentary on the Greek Text (1993). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[22] Joel B. Green. Crucifixion, The Cambridge Companion to Jesus(2001). Cambridge University Press. pp. 91

[23] Geza Vermes. Op. Cit. pp. 181

[24] Bart D. Ehrman. Lost Christianities(2003). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 58

[25] http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=542

[26] Bart D. Ehrman. Op. Cit. pp. 57

[27] Raymond E. Brown. The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2(1997). Op. Cit. pp. 1088

[28] Ibid. pp. 1092

————————————————————————————

Recommended reading:

The Mystery of The Historical Jesus by Louay Fatoohi

The Mystery of the Crucifixion: The Attempt to Kill Jesus in the Qur’an, The New Testament, and Historical Sources by Louay Fatoohi

200+ ways the Qur’an Corrects the Bible by Mohamed Ghounem

Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

Jesus Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman

An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown

The Truth About the Crucifixion of Jesus by A.S. Abraham

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

165 Responses to “A Critique on the Crucifixion”

  1. Bfoali says:

    As-Sallamu-Alaykom dear brother Ibn Anwar,
    I first want to say what a fantastic article this truly is. I really am getting tired of the whole ‘Is Jesus God’, or ‘is the trinity a sound doctrine’ debate. These debates, though interesting, do not really lead to any sound results. A person who denies the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the trinity can still believe in the bible. But in regards to the resurrection (and ultimately the crucifixion) the event is a must for them to believe in, for as Paul Said:

    ‘’ If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (ICOR. 15:14)

    And it is on that very point, that this topic above all, fascinates me the most.

    I enjoyed your second paragraph in particular for the reason that, it really is a common argument thrown at the public, which is that even non-Christians testify to the crucifixion of Jesus. You have already shown the obvious fallacy of the argument, showing that there are other non-Christians who do not share that view, which makes their point (which is that even non-Christians attest to the crucifixion), look more desperate than anything else. To a further point of interest, another question should be asked on this issue and that is, on what basis do they (the non-Christian scholar) make this speculation?

    Well as you state in your article ‘’ Historians involved in this area of study base their judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data.’’

    As it ought to be, due to the fact that there is no concise evidence of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus ever occurring, our earliest testimonial are from the gospels which (and I am throwing a bone here) were written fifty years after Jesus and on that basis should be looked at with skepticism.

    For a second let us forget about the crucifixion, the sad reality is that there is not even proof of the ‘’ trial of Jesus’’.

    As Lloyd Graham wrote:

    “In the nineteenth century an eminent scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the records of Pilate’s court, still extant, for evidence of this trial. He found nothing.”
    (Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 343)

    A tragic irony about this is that, our supposed earliest written work on the crucifixion of Jesus outside of the bible is Josephus whom have you shown is not trustworthy, but not only to the affirmation of non-Christians but also to Christians.

    All information on this issue, sadly, comes from second hand sources.

    In regards to your first contention, I have actually seen this weak attempt of Christian apologists trying to harmonize inconsistent passages. From what I heard there basis (and argument) for doing this is as follows:
    If one gospel says A held the cross, and another gospel says B also held the cross, well those two are not contradictions. Both can be true at the same time. A could have held the cross, and at some later point B could have helped A. It is only problematic if the gospel say: A ONLY held the cross, because both cannot be true at the same time.

    I believe this method of harmonisations comes from the concept of Aristotle who defined a contradiction as being: two things which cannot be true at the same time (I learnt of this definition at a lecture I once watched).

    Now the problem with the argument is quite obvious. Readers of the bible can NEVER know what actually occurred from one gospel. We do not have ONE clear picture of the events. Each version is different. Yes you can harmonize, but if we want to know what happened, then one gospel is not sufficient enough. We are only getting the point of view from one author.

    The other problem is that, even if we do harmonize…none of those accounting for the information were even there! Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not present. So there testimony on that basis is very weak as well.

    On further interest, what does a Christian do, if there are blatant contradictions? You cannot harmonize those (well you would be surprised, some try to). Your article deals with numerous clear cut contradictions which cannot be harmonised and in those circumstances what would a Christian than do?

    This concept of harmonizing at first glance is a great attempt but fails miserably in the end.

    Finally (for this issue of harmonization), even if harmonizing does ‘’ solve’’ the problem, it, no matter what does injustice to the authors of the bible as Bart Ehrman said:

    ‘’Harmonizing the conflicting gospel accounts does violence to what the authors and their work intend. Each author wrote with a specific intention in mind and a specific audience in sight hence mixing and mashing one author’s narrative with the other is unjustified. By doing such a thing they are in reality reconstructing a gospel that none of the gospel writers had in mind. By doing such a thing they have in reality introduced a new gospel.’’ (I got this from your site)

    One of the great points of your article would have to be contention # 4. I believe it speaks for itself, so a comment by me on the issue would be irrelevant. On a personal note though, I have to say, that I actually never heard of such an argument. I really cannot even begin to think of how a person can escape from this tricky predicament. It’s rather ironic that nearly all bible discrepancies are due to the gospel writers. But on this point the words of Jesus (alleged words of Jesus) creates the problem for the gospel writers.

    On a more positive note, I have to give the gospel writers (including all those who made copies of the bible) credit for not trying to ‘’ fix’’ the problem. As you have shown in your previous articles, problems in the bible were ‘’fixed’’, but shockingly no such attempt was made by the copyist in regards to this issue (unless you know otherwise).

    With that said I leave with a verse from the Holy Quran:

    [002:079] Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:”This is from God,” to traffic with it for miserable price! – Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
    Sallam

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Assalamu’alaikum,
      Thank you for your very comprehensive feedback Bfoali. I certainly do appreciate it. However, I’d like to correct something. The quotation isn’t from Ehrman. They’re my words paraphrasing Ehrman’s. I can see why your English teacher must like you Bfoali. Very well written indeed. Keep up the good work.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      I’ve added one more contention to the cumulative set of arguments. Check it out.

  2. IBN AAD says:

    Would you please write an excellent article about what the above video is claiming.

  3. ibnsaad says:

    wow this looks like a good article i need to read it in-depth some time :p

  4. zidane says:

    Salam alikum brother ibn anwar, very good article and good to have you back .

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      wa’alaikum salam warahmatullah. Thank you akhi. I am glad you had a good read. I hope you don’t mind that I corrected your comment instead of posting them together.

  5. idris says:

    why would “king of the jews” matter?

    There were many different non-orthodox sects in the area each
    preaching their own version of Judaism, so the Sanhedrin wouldn’t have cared if one Rabbi among them claimed to be a title that doesn’t exist in any significant, actionable way

    No Roman official (including Caesar, I would argue) would have given a hoot if some local Jew were going around claiming to be the “King of the Jews” no matter what Caesar decreed, as is evidenced in the narrative when Pilate allegedly says it’s not his problem, take him to Herod, so how could he be “blackmailed” by “the crowd” the next day?

  6. idris says:

    Look bad? “The Jews” as you put it denounced Jesus as a “King of the Jews,” thereby concurring with Pilate’s findings that Jesus was not and never claimed to be (as you concede) the “King of the Jews.”

    “I have found this man has commited no Roman crime. He does not claim that he is your king, your Sanhedrin claimed he claimed that and I do not beleive them. Is he your king?”

    “We have no king but Caesar, but if you don’t kill Jesus, we’re going to tell our mortal enemies and our oppressors that you refused to kill him for claiming he was the King of the Jews.”

    “You just publicly declared that you don’t consider him to be the King of the Jews; he has publicly declared he is not the King of the Jews; and I have officially, publicly declared that he has committed no Roman crime. The record is clear, :”””;”you.”

    “Beside the fact that I already anticipated such a possibility on this day particularly, because I’m not a …/.,., idiot, you mean you’re going to riot if I don’t kill the completely innocent man that you all agree is not your ‘King’ even though you all supposedly love him so much that if you found out that your leaders had conspired to try and kill him (as I just told you was precisely what they did) you’d riot against them, but now, inexplicably are not going to, because you’re all just so susceptible to ‘office politics’ that don’t yet exist? Gee, I never thought of that possibility on this the most militarily prepared day of the year for such a contingency. GUARDS!”

  7. Craig says:

    The link “A Critical Study of Isaiah 53” on this page links to the wrong URL:
    http://www.unveiling-christian.....isaiah-53/

    It currently redirects the viewer to a page titled “Nothing found for 2009 04 20 A-critical-study-of-isaiah-53” and displays content discussing the ALL IMPORTANT topic “What is the difference between Christian Debt Consolidation Consolidation regular?”

    The correct URL for this link should be:
    http://unveilingchristianity.w.....isaiah-53/

  8. Muslim says:

    the crucifixion is christianity .. without it the pagan cult of cross worship would not exist .. and the 65744 contradictions in the crucifixion accounts are enough to discredit the reliability of the gospel writers …

    • Harry says:

      its better than the pagan idolatry of praying towards a black stone!!

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        Muslims do not pray to the Hajarul Aswad, but to the Ka’bah. The Hajarul Aswad is used as a marker for the ‘tawaf’ which is one of the prescribed actions during the umrah and hajj. Stop making idiotic statements. You don’t have to prove that you’re an idiot. We already know that you are. Do you have any compunction at all that more than 1 billion Christian Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic etc. pray towards a half naked man stuck on a cross? Do you have any problems with Catholics who use Jesus’ alleged “holy prepuce/foreskin” as sacred relic?

  9. Imad says:

    Assalaamalaikum
    Very good article. One thing I never understood about the crucifixion – if Jesus knew he was to rise on the third day then where was the sacrifice? Now Prophet Ibrahim a.s and his son – that was true sacrifice because they had no inkling that a ram was going to be substituted at the last minute. But if someone knows that he is going to be resurrected a few days after being killed, how does that count as a sacrifice? What exactly is such a person sacrificing if his life is to be returned to him after a few days?

  10. ROB says:

    Bro imad, it gets WORSE,

    “…any feelings of DISTANCE or ABANDONMENT by the father he might have suffered would have been softened by his expectation of being inevitably reunitd with him…”

    “…god’s plan for the salvation of sinners, a PLAN in which jesus himself would have PARTICIPATED by ALLOWING himSELF TO BE EXECUTED, and which as gOD himSELF jesus would have HELPED DESIGN.Therefore far from feeling lonely jesus should have enjoyed a sense of cooperation and fellowship with the father in working towards an eminently worthwhile objective”

  11. ROB says:

    christians are very blasphemous people. a child drinks his mothers milk and feels the milk go through his mouth. sam shamoun has disgusting words for the islamic hoor3een, he does not apply his filth to his man god. did his god literarly feel his mothers milk go through his mouth? the keyword is “feel”
    why a “plan of salavation” involves drinking human milk?

  12. holy ghost says:

    did shamouns god “feel” its “waste” go through its “exit area”? after all this is the feeling god of his that needs to suffer

  13. The Bull says:

    Hi Ibn

    You say the crucifixion is not specifically mentioned in the OT.
    What about psalms 22, particulary verse 16? ‘they pierced my hands and feet’. What is interesting to note is that crucifixion was not invented until the Romans some 700 years later.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      The Jewish translation does not say “they pierced my hands and feet”. Rather it says, “Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers encompassed me, like a lion are my hands and my feet.”. The Hebrew reads כִּי סְבָבוּנִי כְּלָבִים עֲדַת מְרֵעִים, הִקִּיפוּנִי כָּאֲרִי יָדַי וְרַגְלָי. The key word is כארי(K’ari) which means ‘like a lion’. The New International Version in its footnote states that “most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text me, / like a lion”. The same word occurs several places throughout the Tanakh: Numbers 23:24 (כארי ) [and as a young Lion], Numbers24:9 (כארי) [like a lion], Isaiah 38:13(כארי) [like a lion], Ezekiel 22:25(כארי). Many Christians would want to favour the reading that says “they pierced” and would cite for example the Septuagint which says ωρυξαν(oruksan). However, ‘oruksan’ does not mean pierced. The word for ‘pierced’ in Greek is διάτρητος (diatretos). ‘Oruksan’ in Greek means ‘to dig’ e.g. to dig a trench/hole (See Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon).

      Undoubtedly, most Christian versions of the Bible renders it as ‘they pierced my hands and feet’. Where does it say in the New Testament that the hands and feet of Jesus were pierced when he was allegedly fixed on the cross? It is historically attested that they used to tie the victim onto the stake. In fact, up till now only one piece of archeological find i.e. a foot with a rather large nail driven through it supports the traditional imagery of Jesus’ crucifixion. Secondly, where does the verse itself mentions “crucifixion” or a “cross”? The verse does not say upon what exactly the person is “pierced” onto. Thirdly, the verse is in the past tense. It is not foretelling a future event. It is talking about something that had taken place when it was written. Fourthly, contextually the person in question is described as a worm in verse six, “But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people.” Do you believe Jesus was a worm? Not like a worm, but a worm and not a man. Is such language even appropriate for Jesus? By now, you ought to know that this arena is no joke. Come fully prepared. As usual, try harder.

      • The Bull says:

        The Jewish Talmud testifies of the crucifixion of Jesus.
        The supposed forged passage in Josephus work, Antiquities, is found in all ancient copies of the works of Josephus. It is also referred to as authentic by other ancient writers beside Eusebius (who the forgery was ‘credited’ to) so it is impossible for it to have been added later. The second passage (concerning Christ) in Antiquities has never been disputed by anyone and yet it does not make sense on its own (without the first). The Romans also prized Josephus and were ‘guardians’ of the text. Any forgery would have been quickly exposed.

        In contrast you have no evidence Jesus wasn’t crucified other than vain attempts to disprove the evidence.

        The LXX and the dead sea scrolls written before Christ both render the word ‘dig’ or possibly ‘gouge’. The masoretic texts written a thousand years after Christ render the word ‘lion’.
        To lion ones hands and feet does not make sense in the context. Also the Jewish scholars that translated the original Hebrew (before Christ) translated it ‘dig’ and this agrees with the Hebrew in the dead sea scrolls. I think that the evidence shows a strong case for ‘pierced’ in the text. Other aspects of the crucifixion scenario are also played out, for example casting lots for clothing (v18) and verse 1.

        John testifies that Christ was nailed (20:25). Colossians also tells of nailing to the cross (2:14).

        Jesus became a worm because he became sin and was treated like a worm! Of course he didn’t cease to become a man because he said he wasn’t anymore! Not everything in the bible should be taken literally.

    • Imad says:

      Crucifixion was not invented by the Romans. The first written evidence we have of this method of punishment is by the Carthaginians/Phoenicians, which does not of course negate the possibility that it could have been used before them. Ibn Anwar’s points are very valid, but even if, for argument’s sake it is assumed that the passage does refer to crucifixion, that still does not prove that it specifically foretells the crucifixion of Jesus. Thousands of Jewish zealots were crucified under Roman rule.

      • The Bull says:

        Yes, but how many claimed to be the Messiah? How many were born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)? How many claimed to be a king and rode a donkey to a large crowd (Zechariah 9:9)? How many were betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12). How many claimed to die for others at the appointed time (Daniel 9:26) ? How many would cry the exact same words and have garments bet upon (Psalm 22:1&18). How many read Isaiah 61 and said it has been fulfilled? (Luke 4:18,19)….and many more. Jesus fulfilled all these. It is unthinkable and illogical to think it could be referring someone else.

        Psalm 22:27 : “All the ends of the world shall REMEMBER and turn to the Lord….” (emphasis added). I hope and pray your memory improves soon!

        The Bull Translation: “Oh yeah, that’s right, it was there all along, plain as can be…..I’d better repent quickly”

  14. mrkiller says:

    “The LXX and the dead sea scrolls written before Christ both render the word ‘dig’ or possibly ‘gouge’. The masoretic texts written a thousand years after Christ render the word ‘lion’.
    To lion ones hands and feet does not make sense in the context. Also the Jewish scholars that translated the original Hebrew (before Christ) translated it ‘dig’ and this agrees with the Hebrew in the dead sea scrolls. I think that the evidence shows a strong case for ‘pierced’ in the text. Other aspects of the crucifixion scenario are also played out, for example casting lots for clothing (v18) and verse 1. ”

    http://www.freeratio.org/thear.....p?t=159132

    there is 33 PAGE

    you are one guy who swallows everything your church teaches you . not once did LOOK in to the manuscript evidence . keep your mouth open and swallow everything your church teaches you.

  15. mrkiller says:

    The Testamentum Flavianum (TF) is generally acknowledged as having been worked on by christians. The only problem we really have to deal with is just how much of the TF was the work of christians. I have usually argued here that the problem is arbitrary and once some christian work has been acknowledge there is no way to know whether it was some or all of it. One doesn’t really have to say any more, for the issue is already dead in the water. But for argument’s sake let’s look at the stuff a little more….

    There is a linguistic discipline these days called discourse analysis whose interest is how discourse works, how sentences can be related one to another to form complex thought. It notices markers in sentences which relate them to earlier or later ones.

    Let me look at a few markers in AJ 18.65 (18.3.4), which starts:

    About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder…

    The two markers that interest me are 1) “the same time” and 2) “another sad calamity”. These linkages are called anaphoric references because they point back to earlier material, ie at the same time as some already mentioned event, and another calamity like the one just mentioned. In this case both point back to another event which happened about the same time which was a calamity which put the Jews into disorder. We find the calamity in AJ 18.55-62 (18.3.1-2) which deals with a sedition among the Jews ending with “a great number of them slain”.

    The beginning of 18.65 points straight back to 18.62 as though it followed directly after it, yet the infamous Testamentum Flavium now intervenes to disrupt the discourse linkage between the two sections of discourse. This is a telling indication that the TF was a total interpolation: it simply does not belong between the sedition of 18.55-62 and the “another sad calamity” which happened “about the same time” in Rome.

    While the TF could be stretched to contain an event which might fulfill the linkage to “at the same time”, though the TF is more correctly a set introduction to Jesus that dealing with a particular event being referenced by “the same time” because it involves the full ministry of Jesus; nevertheless, the TF cannot be construed to be the first sad calamity implied by “another sad calamity” which happened to the Jews, especially when such a specific calamity comes right before it in 18.55-62.

    Discourse analysis shows that the whole TF is not original to its location in the Jewish Antiquities. That suggests that the passage is wholly bogus. We have answered the question posed in the first paragraphs: “The only problem we really have to deal with is just how much of the TF was the work of christians.” Answer: all of it.

    In case anyone is really interested in a 10th century Arabic version of the TF, this is how it compares:

    Arabic Greek

    There are two simple problems with the highlighted section: 1) it gives Jesus the appellation “christ” and 2) it has unaccountable word order.

    1) Jesus called christ

    Josephus, who claimed descent from a Jewish priestly family, spent the best part of his adult life defending the Jews in Roman society. He was a pious Jew, who obviously understood the concept of the messiah, though he avoided using any of the 40 odd LXX references which mention χριστος. In fact, if the Jesus passages are veracious, then the only place Josephus mentions χριστος is in regard to Jesus. This hardly seems likely. He would have known that a dead messiah is a false messiah. He would also have known that to do justice to the term, he would have had to explain the notion of the messiah. (This would explain why he omitted the references to the χριστος when he drew on the LXX.)

    The James passage doesn’t explain the term χριστος, which is in itself a problem, because the term χριστος means “unguent” or “ointment”, that which is used to anoint, so that Jesus called christ would seem exceptionally strange to his patrician audience, “Jesus the ointment”. The Jews, when they started translating their religious works into Greek chose an idiosyncratic way of translating messiah. Using the Greek version of the same verb as messiah is based on, they derived their equivalent of messiah, ie “christ”, though, as we have seen, the word doesn’t refer to the one who is anointed but that which is used to anoint. Outside the Judeo-christian tradition, the notion of the christ would have made one think of ointment, so we find the preposterous description of “Jesus called ointment”. While Josephus surely would have had to define the term for his Roman audience, christian readers would have had no problem, suggesting that the text was written with christians in mind.

    2) Unaccountable word order

    There’s no way of getting out of it: the word order of “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” is strange. The normal way of saying the phrase would be “James the brother of Jesus called christ”. The current word order is certainly disturbed, though not impossible. However, such a word order suggests a discourse motive behind it.

    For example, the high priest Jeshua, who had been mentioned several times in AJ 11, could justifiably be placed at the front of a phrase, “the high priest at the time was the son of Jeshua, named Joakim” (AJ 11.122). The high priest Jeshua is established in the text, so one can justify inverting the word order.

    Or consider BJ 2.575 which introduces John of Gischala, “John (son) of Levi”. This is followed a little later (585) by a case of variatio, “a man from Gischala, the son of Levi, whose name was John”.

    When we come to “the brother of Jesus called christ”, there is no recent prior reference to allow the word order change. Besides, it is made further strange by the fact that the relationship that Jesus was brought in for was that of brother, when the Jewish custom is filiality. The only reason why fraternity is used is because of prior reference.

    On two counts the phrase “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” is improbable, but the phrase is a different type of manifestation from the TF. It is likely that Josephus originally mentioned something like “a certain man named James”, which drew a marginal comment, “the brother of Jesus called christ”. A later scribe, finding the marginal comment, considered it an omission from the text and “reinserted” it.

    http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=295641

  16. mrkiller says:

    “The Romans also prized Josephus and were ‘guardians’ of the text. Any forgery would have been quickly exposed.”

    you don’t know what the hell a forgery is. they say that when forgers get caught, they (forgers) need to become more sophisticated in their forgery. the tf clearly has a very christian style and when christians are in possession of the manuscripts who is gonna give a hoot about the style in the tf? if christians created gospels in mary’s name , inpeters name, attributed forged letters to pontus pilate, and the readers who LACKED THE skills of DETECTING forgeries , they’re not gonna question whether it is forgery or not , are they? they’re gonna believe.

    • The Bull says:

      Unless you can find an ancient copy of Antiquities that omits this passage, I’m sorry, but you do not have a strong case. I stress that most scholars refer to it as authentic today.

  17. Ibn Anwar says:

    This is going to be fun.

    The Bull said:
    The Jewish Talmud testifies of the crucifixion of Jesus.
    The supposed forged passage in Josephus work, Antiquities, is found in all ancient copies of the works of Josephus. It is also referred to as authentic by other ancient writers beside Eusebius (who the forgery was ‘credited’ to) so it is impossible for it to have been added later. The second passage (concerning Christ) in Antiquities has never been disputed by anyone and yet it does not make sense on its own (without the first). The Romans also prized Josephus and were ‘guardians’ of the text. Any forgery would have been quickly exposed.

    My reply:
    It is very interesting that you appeal to the Talmud which says that Pantera was Mary’s paramour and Jesus is his illegitimate and one Rabbi makes the claim that Mary’s husband was Stada((Miller, R.J.(2003). Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God. California: Polebridge Press. pp. 217). However, let’s have a look at the text itself which you are specifically appealing to:
    “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged…With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government…Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah.” (Sanhedrin 43a) Who are matthai, nakai, nezer, buni and todah??? The Mishnah was only put together in the third century. It is of little value and nowhere does it mention crucifixion.
    Did you even read my comments on the Testimonium Flavianum in the article? Allow me to reproduce it for you here:
    Flavius Josephus is popularly quoted by Christians to substantiate the crucifixion tale. They quote the very famous passage that is attributed to him known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

    “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3) [14]

    Scholars have long suspected the above to be spurious. Questions regarding the authenticity of this particular passage have been raised since the 16th century as Raymond Brown notes in his volume one of The Death of the Messiah on page 374. Today it is widely rejected as a forgery attributed to Josephus. Raymond E. Brown on the same page of his work cites a number of authorities who rejected the text as outright inauthentic which includes Battifol, Birdsall, Burkitt, Conzelmann, Hahn, L. Hermann, Lagrange, Norden and Zeitlin. It is historically known that Josephus was a Jew and died as one. He did not convert to Christianity at any point in time. It goes without saying that being a Jew he would have hardly attested Jesus’ Christhood and his rising again fulfilling the prophecies of the prophets of old. Had he believed in such Christian doctrines he would have been a Christian. The early church father Origen explicitly states in Against Celcus, 1.47 and in his Commentary on Matthew, 10.17 that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Had the passage been authentically written by Josephus surely the early church fathers of the second and third centuries would have quoted him especially when they cite him regarding Old Testament interpretations. The earliest citation of the text is from the fourth century by Eusebius of Caesaria in Demonstratio Evangelica or The Proof of the Gospel. That’s over 400 years of a gap which is more than enough time to fake a document. Impossible to be traced back to Josephus it is indeed a fake. It is noteworthy that Raymond E. Brown prefers the position of partial-interpolation where Josephus is thought to have written the basic text and the special references to Jesus e.g. as Messiah are later Christian interpolations. In discussing this however, Brown does not offer any definite substantiation for this position. In fact, he merely describes it as “plausible”. The Testimonium is found in all the mss. of Ant. [15] and none omits the special references to Christ which leads us to contend that the whole text must have been forged.

    You said:
    In contrast you have no evidence Jesus wasn’t crucified other than vain attempts to disprove the evidence.

    My reply:
    My lengthy article sought to disprove the crucifixion tale and I believe that I have successfully done that.

    You said:
    The LXX and the dead sea scrolls written before Christ both render the word ‘dig’ or possibly ‘gouge’. The masoretic texts written a thousand years after Christ render the word ‘lion’.
    To lion ones hands and feet does not make sense in the context. Also the Jewish scholars that translated the original Hebrew (before Christ) translated it ‘dig’ and this agrees with the Hebrew in the dead sea scrolls. I think that the evidence shows a strong case for ‘pierced’ in the text. Other aspects of the crucifixion scenario are also played out, for example casting lots for clothing (v18) and verse 1.

    My reply:
    Do you accept the LXX reading of Isaiah 9:6? Now, according to some experts the LXX reading in Psalms 22:16 agrees with the reading in the Dead Sea Scrolls from Nahal Hever. The ISV translates the verse thus, “They gouged[1] my hands and my[2] feet.” In its footnote to the verse it says, “22:16 So LXX, Syr, DSS 5/6 HevPS, XHev/Se4; the MT reads Like a lion “. As I have mentioned the Greek word in the LXX does not actually mean “pierced”. Rather it means “to dig” like digging a trench or a hole. You have suggested the translation “to gouge” which is found in the ISV. Was Jesus’ hands and feet gouged? Do you understand what gouged or to dig means? Sticking a pole or a stake or a nail in the ground is not digging it. To dig is to take a tool like a spade and unearth or remove medium from a chosen spot on the ground. The action involves penetration and extraction of material e.g. soil. Shall I give you a dictionary definition? I don’t think you’d need it. I’m sure you’re smart enough to know what both words mean. If you do then please stop saying that Jesus’ hands and feet were gouged like how you would gouge an eye out from its socket. The text is no doubt filled with controversy. What exactly does the word mean? The New Interpreter’s Study Bible translates it as, “My hand and feet shrivelled.” Its footnote to the verse says, “Meaning of Hebrew uncertain.” (Harelson, W.J. (2003). The New Interpreter’s Study Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 771). Likewise, the New Oxford Annotated Bible translates the verse as,”My hands and feet are shrivelled.” Its footnote states that, “b. Hebrew meaning uncertain.” and “textually obscure,: (lit. : “like a lion my hands and feet.”). (Hutton, R.R. (2010). Psalms. In Michael D. Coogan(Ed.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 790). Donald Senior and John J. Collins translate it as, “So wasted are my hands and feet.” (Senior, D. & Collins, J.J. (2006). The Catholic Study Bible. Oxford University Press. pp. 697). There is no basis at all textually to say that the word means pierced when in fact it does not. It is textually obscure and only those who are desperate to promote the image of the crucified messiah cling desperately to the idea that the verse means “pierced”.

    You said:
    John testifies that Christ was nailed (20:25). Colossians also tells of nailing to the cross (2:14).

    My reply:
    The verse in John 20:25 reads, “The other disciples therefore said to him, We have seen the LORD. But he said to them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” I don’t see the verse saying that Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed. It speaks of his side. Where is his side alluded to in Psalms 22? Nowhere. How do we know the exact nature of the imprint made by the nails? We don’t. Many scholars including Raymond E. Brown doubts the authenticity of this text. It is clearly a followup to the story only found in John where a centurion pierced Jesus’ side. This story is conspicuously missing in the synoptic gospels which makes it very suspect. If it were true that Jesus was speared one would think such a gruesome and sure blow causing Jesus to die would have been mentioned by the others. It is quite clear that the story was invented in the later strata of information about Jesus to counter growing gnostic ideology that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross.
    Colossians 2:14 reads:
    “having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”
    Where does it say that Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed? It is talking about the ordinances that in his view have been nailed to the cross. You have to transport the traditional imagery of the crucifixion invented centuries later after Jesus’ departure for you to get the false impression that Paul is talking about the crucified messiah nailed to the cross. Thus far you have not proven your case at all. Let’s move on.

    You said:
    Jesus became a worm because he became sin and was treated like a worm! Of course he didn’t cease to become a man because he said he wasn’t anymore! Not everything in the bible should be taken literally.

    Notice, the verse does not say “like a worm”. It says, “HE IS A WORM, not a man”. Let us say this is symbolism at play here. In that case Job uses the same symbolism in Job 25:6, “how much less man, who is but a maggot–the son of man, who is only a worm!”. The context shows that this maggot of a man(all of mankind) and THE SON OF MAN who is only a worm are impure. Jesus is called ‘son of man’ 83 times in the NT. Is he impure like all men(maggots) in Job 25:6? You’re going to say, “Yes, he was when he was on the cross he took all sin upon himself”. Notice that the verses do not really say this. This is what you believe and you’re forcing that interpretation of your into the text. The texts themselves do not suggest that the worm-like nature of the son of man or the person in psalms 22 is restricted only to a short period in his life specifically on a cross. It is your imagination that they say that when in fact they do not. Furthermore, if you say that Jesus the son of God who IS GOD Himself in your Trinitarian doctrine took up all the sins in the world as he was fixed on the cross that means he became the most despised and cursed of all existence. God became cursed or was it only the man? If the man was horrendously cursed beyond reckoning taking up sins like rape, murder, paedophilia, lying, stealing etc. etc. etc. who died for his salvation? Did he die for himself? How could he have died for himself when he became tainted? Please do not avoid all these logical problems and try to provide some clarification. After all, Paul did say “Prove all things…”. In the same Job that uses the worm symbolism we find that he says,”Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!”(Job 14:4). Does this apply to Jesus? Wasn’t his mother a woman? Was she not impure like the rest of humanity or was he pure as per Catholic immaculate conception tradition? Taking the Bible as a united book explaining one section with another though they are hundreds and thousands of years apart is folly as you have just seen. You just end up discrediting the assumptions of the church and the Bible itself.

    You said:
    Yes, but how many claimed to be the Messiah? How many were born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)? How many claimed to be a king and rode a donkey to a large crowd (Zechariah 9:9)? How many were betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12). How many claimed to die for others at the appointed time (Daniel 9:26) ? How many would cry the exact same words and have garments bet upon (Psalm 22:1&18). How many read Isaiah 61 and said it has been fulfilled? (Luke 4:18,19)….and many more. Jesus fulfilled all these. It is unthinkable and illogical to think it could be referring someone else.

    My reply:
    Do you realise that Matthew got Zechariah 9:9 wrong? This is noted by Geza Vermes and by other equally and less eminent Biblical scholars. Matthew looking at the LXX thought that Zechariah 9:9 is referring to two different animals a donkey and a colt, hence making Jesus ride both animals at once like a circus act! In fact, I discussed this very issue back in 2008 under my article ‘Will the saints in Matthew please stand up!’. Let’s reproduce my discussion on it here:
    According to the author of Matthew as fulfillment of prophecy Jesus rode on both a donkey AND a colt, the foal of a donkey. So, he rode on two animals at once. Here’s the passage:

    When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethpage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, `The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately.” This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, “Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

    The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them (Matthew 21:1-7).

    There are two important points of disparity in Matthew’s version of the event as opposed to those in Mark(11:1-10) and Luke(19:28-40). Firstly, According to the author of Matthew Jesus was mounted on BOTH a donkey and a colt whilst Mark and Luke only mentions Jesus riding on a colt. Secondly, Matthew in no uncertain terms saw the event as a fulfillment of an OT prophecy whilst Mark and Luke says nothing at all about prophecy fulfillment. At this juncture one can already notice a clear discrepency in the incident. Nevertheless, let us continue with our analysis.

    The author of Matthew apparently misunderstood the prophecy which he was quoting in Matthew 21. The prophecy in question is from Zachariah:

    “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt, the foal of an ass.”(Zech. 9:9)

    Unfamiliar with the intricacies of Hebrew poetry and language, the author of Matthew misunderstood the parallel between “riding upon an ass, even upon a colt, the foal of an ass.” in the original wording of Zachariah. This then led to a misquotation and misunderstanding in Matthew 21, “mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” thinking that Zachariah is talking about two animals i.e. a donkey and its foal when actually only one animal is involved. This MISTAKE tells us that whoever the author of Matthew was, he was certainly non-Jewish, hence his obliviousness to Hebraic literary forms. The misunderstanding and misinterpretation led to the absurd idea that Jesus performed a circus-like act, riding on a donkey and a colt into Jerusalem, something which is absent in both Mark’s and Luke’s version of the incident.

    There are many examples for the parallelism found in Zachariah throughout the Old Testament. In fact, Zachariah himself used it often:

    “that the word of the Lord came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chislev” (Zachariah 7:1)”

    The ninth month was Chislev and vice versa. The two are one and the same.

    Further examples:

    “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even the ten commandments” (Deut. 4:13)

    “The Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thy hand, and given it to thy neighbor, even to David.”(1 Sam. 28:17)

    The above is closer as an example to the “prophecy” discussed. Here we see a mention of neighbour and David. But taken in with the understanding of Hebrew literary form we understand that it’s not talking about a neighbour and David, but they are actually the same person.

    “Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it a city, even Jerusalem, and lay siege against it.” (Ezek. 4:1-2)

    In each of the examples given it’s quite clear that “even” or “and”(ve in Hebrew)does not constitute a conjunction between two different beings, but is in actual fact the one and the same being. A Christian ministry says regarding Jesus riding on a colt(singular) in light of Zech. 9:9:
    “For the mighty Messiah to arrive on a donkey’s colt would seem incongruous by the time of Christ. Nevertheless that’s what Jesus did, thus fulfilling Zechariah 9:9 (Matt. 21:1- 5).”
    http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2165.htm

    Yet another, Rev. Bruce Goettsche:
    “This is a quote from the Old Testament book of Zechariah. In Zechariah 9:9 we see a prediction that a King would ride into Jerusalem one day on a donkey.”
    http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/032397.html

    Sadly, the ministers failed to realise that Matthew 21 actually says Jesus rode on two animals. There is no doubt that the author of Matthew thought that Jesus rode on both donkey and colt whilst none of the other disciples say so. The others all agreed that it was on a single animal. So, again we see in Matthew 21:7:
    “and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their clothes on them; and he sat on them.”
    In Greek, we read the last key words “επανω αυτων” (epano autos) epano there is an adverb and it means to be upon something and autos which is a personal pronoun and genetive PLURAl neuter refers to the two animals.

    The fact that Matthew made this stark error and that neither Mark which Matthew is based on according to Biblical scholars and Luke are both silent about it being a prophecy is sufficient to disclaim the idea that a prophecy has been fulfilled. After all, Mark and Luke do mention things which they consider fulfillment of prophecies. If the incident is truly a fulfillment of prophecy they ought to be consistent in saying that it is.

    Ronnie’s problem is compounded further that when Zechariah 9:9 is taken in CONTEXT we see that it is a past event which Matthew conveniently plucked out of context and pasted it on Jesus. In verse number one of chapoter 7 in Zechariah, we see that the Lord had come to him in the 4th year of King Darius. This would be around the postexhilic period when the Jews were busy rebuilding Jerusalem and their temple. The task was difficult and much of what was written was to boost the people’s confidence and morale. The passage wherein Zechariah wrote of a king riding on an ass, was meant at humiliating the surrounding nations who were generally malcontent towards Israel. In verse 4 we see a prediction of the burning of Tyre by the Lord. Ashod, Ashkelon and Ekron, the strongholds of the Philistines were to be cut off and become desolate as seen in verses 5 to 7. And the Lord promised to “camp around [his] house” so that armies will not be able to pass in verse 8. This is the context which the verse in Zechariah 9:9 is extracted from. Did any of those things occur in Jesus time? No, Tyre did not burn, nor did any of those mentioned occur. This is the most commonest trick in the evangelical text book. Take verses out of context and nail it on Jesus’ forehead so as to establish his legitimacy. The prophecy itself is vague and becomes even more vague when taken in context. It is a misapplication by Matthew as already proven.

    However, even if we were to accept Ronnie’s claim that its a fulfillment of prophecy for the sake of argument, I do not see how it diminished the quality of my article. In fact, this additional information of it being a fulfillment of prophecy reinforces my point regarding the mass ressurection. Why? Because, according to Ronnie that mass ressurection from Matthew 27:52-53 is also a fulfillment of prophecy. But this time it’s from Isaiah 26:19. This will be elucidated further in due course.

    I’ve gone through several reputed commentaries of the Bible such as Jamieson-Fausset-Brown’s, Scofield reference notes, Matthew Henry’s etc. and none of them mention it being a prophecy for Matthew 27:52-53. In fact, if we were to take the prophecy and try to apply it to Jesus we shall see a clear misapplication yet again.

    The passage from isaiah 26:19-21 reads:
    “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead”

    In Matthew 27:52 we see an immediate ressurection of the saintly people after the alleged death of Jesus right after the “veil of the temple was torn”. So this mass ressurection happened on a Friday, the first day of Jesus’ alleged death. There is no doubt that according to the narrative the dead woke up right after Jesus’ death between the veil of the temple being torn and the centurions and those with him who said “truly this is the son of God” in reaction to the earthquake which supposedly happened again immediately after Jesus’ alleged death on the cross. When was Jesus ressurected? According to Christians it was on the THIRD DAY! What did Isaiah say?

    “together with my dead body shall they arise”

    The key word there is TOGETHER.

    Further more, take the verse in context and yet again we shall see that it has nothing to do with Jesus’ alleged ressurection. We read in verse 21:

    “The earth will also disclose her blood, And will no more cover her slain”.

    Did that ever happen?? Even until today, the dead will be disclosed by the earth if they are not burned or thrown into the sea.

    Finally, to recap you said that Jesus riding on a donkey is a fulfillment of prophecy. Okay great. Every single gospel writer mentioned Jesus riding on a donkey as we have seen in the article, from Matthew right to John. So they all managed to write this “prophetic” fulfillment of riding on a donkey(forget about the discrepency in Matthew which i exposed earlier for a moment). At the same token, you also claimed that Matthew 27:52-53 the very passage the article deals with is also a fulfillment of prophecy from Isaiah 26:19. Do you see the problem now? No? Okay, let me spell it out for you.

    Jesus riding of A DONKEY(when everybody else did this) =
    Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all wrote about it. Why? Because its fulfillment of prophecy.

    Saintly people rising from their graves and walking into Jerusalem, the single most extraordinary event in human history =
    Nobody except the author of Matthew witnessed it. This is also suppose to be fulfillment of prophecy.

    Both are suppose to be fulfillments of prophecies. Which is a greater fulfillment, riding on a donkey like EVERYONE ELSE or the saintly people RISING from their graves and walking into Jerusalem? Any reasonable, thinking, sane man will say rising from the dead is a more significant event because of its miraculous nature. Yet, you insist there is no need for the Gospel writers to write them, yet they all wrote about Jesus riding on a donkey. Why aren’t they consistent? If riding on a donkey is written by one and all because its a fulfillment of prophecy, then saintly people rising from the dead deserves even more attention since it is also according to you a fulfillment of prophecy and definitely a great miraculous feat. On the same principle i.e. fulfillment of prophecy the story has to be mentioned by one and all. If you still can’t see the problem, then I feel terribly sorry for you. You yourself recognise the utter ambiguity of the whole affair. Who were they, where exactly did they go to, how many were there, what happened to them etc. Why all the mystery? Because Matthew is the only one who saw it! Because it is nothing more than a little fantasy conjured up by the author of Matthew to dramatise Jesus’ alleged death. It is little wonder that such a story was made up when as we have seen the author can’t even get the prophecy from Zachariah 9:9 right.

    Before I end this response, i’d like to quickly correct you on one thing you said at the end:

    Whether they were in natural-but-mortal bodies ( Lazarus), natural-but-immortal bodies (), or supernatural/glorified bodies (.

    Who told you Lazarus was in a mortal body? With regards to your confusion whether they were immortal or not, i’ve already answered that question in the article. We are informed:
    “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” (Hebrews 9:27)”

    You do not die a natural death more than once. Thus, we can only conclude that those allegedly ressurected became immortal. In addition, Jesus also said at the upper room,”A spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have”. If Jesus was a ressurected body and had flesh and bones then one can only conclude that on the same principle the ressurected were also bodily flesh.

    In conclusion, you have brought even more problems to the issue and have not refuted me on even one point. Thank you and do come again.

    -end of discussion on Zech. 9:9-

    What about Zechariah 11:12? This is cited as a prophesy fulfilled by Jesus in Matthew 27:9. Matthew got it wrong here too. The attribution is to Jeremiah. I have already discussed this in the article. Prof. Raymond E. Brown in his volume 1 or his 2 volume work on the crucifixion says about this confusion, “That conglomeration of words cited by Matt exists nowhere in the standard OT.” [5] The same is noted by Geza Vermes that, “The quotation is said to be of Jeremiah, but it is invented or is more exactly a garbled mixture of Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 18-2-3, 36:6-15.” [6]
    Later scribes who realised the mistaken attribution sought to change it to Zechariah as it somewhat resembles Zech. 11:12 and so they removed the name Jeremiah and replaced it with Zechariah instead(ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ζαχαρίου τοῦ προφήτου). This is found in an 11th century Syriac MS mentioned by Adam Clarke in his commentary. Some later scribes thought that it was from Isaiah so changed Jeremiah to Isaiah instead(ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἰησαίου τοῦ προφήτου ). This is found in a 12th century minuscule(minuscule 21). Yet, there were others who totally removed any attribution to the invented prophesy and simply says ‘in the prophet'(ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου)in manuscripts Φ 33 ita itb syrs, p copbo.

    What about Daniel 9:26?
    The verse reads:
    “After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.” I don’t see where the verse says that Jesus the Christ will die on a cross. Does cut off have to mean death? Not really. The word itself does not necessarily connote death. The verse says that he will have nothing. Jesus as the son of God had nothing at all? he lost everything? So are you telling me that there was a point in time when the Trinity ceased to exist? God can actually cease to exist as He was for even a fraction of a second? It says the end will come like a flood. 2000 years have passed. What end like what flood? It says that war will continue till the end. Historically Jerusalem have known peace for hundreds of years in fact. War was never constant in Jerusalem after Jesus. So the verse must be a lie if it fits the Christian Jesus.

    What about betting on the garments? Isn’t it obvious that the story is made up by the anonymous author to make Jesus fulfill certain things that they thought were prophecies? How many more lies and mistakes do the anonymous authors have to make for you to realise that everything they say if it promotes a Christian theological position should be taken with a grain of salt?

    What about Micah 5:2? Was Jesus really born in Bethlehem or was it fashioned like that to fulfill prophesy by the anonymous authors? yet, again 2000 years have passed and I don’t see a Jesus ruling Israel. It is rather strange that Jesus who is supposed to be God who is supposed to rule all things is described as a person who “will rule over Israel”. Will? What do you mean by will rule Israel? Does God not rule the entire cosmos? Israel is restricted from Him? It would make sense if you say that Jesus is a man and he will return as God’s vicegerent to rule Israel. That would make more sense and I for one won’t have any theological misgivings with it.

    Anyway, try harder.

  18. The Bull says:

    Muslims believe that Christ was crucified as far as the world is concerned because his likeness was placed on another man who was crucified.

    Sura 4:157-158 reads: “…..but they killed him not, nor crucified him, BUT SO IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO THEM.” (emphasis added)

    Therefore history should show that Christ was crucified. You should have no problem that history records the crucifixion. In fact you should expect it because the Quran says so. Can you see the logical flaw in your argument here? What you have to believe is that 600 or so years later a prophet had a revelation that ‘(another) was made to resemble him.’ Can you really place any faith in such a statement?

    • Imad says:

      Christians are the last people in the world who should be using history to disprove claims made by another religion. As per the words of their “saviour”, they should take the beam out of their eye before pointing at the mote in somebody else’s eye. With the plethora of historical contradictions and absurdities in the bible, one wonders with what gall bibliolators across the world dare to use history, of all things, to back their claims.

      • The Bull says:

        You haven’t answered the question. Are there not many apparent contradictions and absurdities in the Koran?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said:
      “Muslims believe that Christ was crucified as far as the world is concerned because his likeness was placed on another man who was crucified.”
      Some Muslims do continue to believe that, but I think their position is problematic in light of the fact that there is not a single narration that can be traced back to the prophet Muhammad s.a.w. saying that someone else(e.g. Judas) was crucified in Jesus’ place. The earliest narration in this regard is from Ibn Abbas who related that a certain Tatianos was made to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead. This however, was an Israeliyyat khabr(news/information) that was in circulation during Ibn Abbas’ time and he may have thought that it shed some light on surah al-nisa, verse 157. Such a story is untraceable to the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. You might want to watch the debate Shabir Ally had with Mike Licona on the crucifixion and resurrection where the former discusses this in some detail.

      What does “shubbiha lahum” or made to appear to them really mean in the verse above? Well, it is reasonable to believe that they thought that they(the enemies) were successful in killing Jesus when in fact they had failed. It is possible that Jesus did not really die on the cross and survived the ordeal. I have already discussed this in the article. Please read it if you haven’t already. There is no flaw in my argument as you are dreaming nor did the Prophet receive revelation of another made made to resemble like Jesus. In fact, the idea that someone else was placed in Jesus’ stead is an old Christian idea that can be traced back to perhaps Basilides at least according to Iranaeus in Against Heresies, 1.24.3. Clement of Alexandria however, refuted Iranaeus and said that Basilides rejected the idea that Simon was crucified instead of Jesus. The point however, is that the idea that someone else was put on the cross in Jesus’ place was an early Christian one. An interesting writing that is today called ‘gnostic’ is the Gospel of Thomas which according to some scholars contain traditions that are older than the canonical gospels themselves. Other early Christian writings with a similar theme are the Apocalypse of Peter and the Second Treatise of the Great Seth. Various Christian groups that later became labelled as ‘heretical refused to believe that Jesus was crucified as Methodist Minister and professor of comparative religion, G. Parrinder says in his ‘Jesus in the Qur’an’ on pages 109-110.
      Is it possible to survive the cross? According to Josephus in ‘Life’, 75 it certainly is. Josephus went to Thecoa with Cerealins at the behest of Titus Caesar. On his way back he saw three crucified men that he identified as his friends. They were taken down after Josephus petitioned Titus “with tears in my eyes” on their behalf. Consequently, they were released. Two died later and one recovered. Though Geza Vermes dismisses the ‘non-fatal crucifixion’ scenario as unlikely he does give it space in his recent work ‘The Resurrection as he writes, “Less extreme believers in Jesus’ survival argue that recovery after crucifixion was possible, as it is attested by Flavius Josephus. In his autobiography, Josephus recalls that on an occassion when he was returning to the capital, he saw many crucified Jews by the roadside. Among them he recognized three of his friends who were still alive. On his pleading, Titus, the future emperor, promptly ordered them to be taken down and treated by Roman physicians, and as a result one of the three survived (Life 420).
      Jesus remained on the cross for such a short period of time that Pilate wondered whether he was truly dead when Josephus of Arimathea asked for his body (Mk 15:44).” (Vermes, G. (2008). The Resurrection: history and myth. New York: Doubleday. pp. 145). In the article I mentioned the fact that in the earliest layer of tradition found in the “Q” or “Sayings gospel” neither the crucifixion nor the resurrection is mentioned or alluded to which would be the strangest thing of all if indeed there was such a primary concern in Jesus’ ministry for the crucifixion and resurrection as per canonical gospel presentation. The reasonable conclusion one may draw from this absence is the fact that Jesus’ ministry did not include the primacy of either crucifixion or resurrection. The Didache which is an important late first century or early second century document mentions nothing of the resurrection and it gives no importance to the crucifixion as Aaron Milavec says, “…the theological integrity of the Didache inclines one to assign no special significance to the cross of the crucifixion…”(Milavec, A. (2003). The Didache: faith, hope, & life of the earliest Christian communities. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. pp. 821). Incidentally, the Didache makes no mention of Jesus being ‘son of God’ and consistently calls him a servant. It also gives a radically different picture of the ‘bread and wine’. It does not incorporate the idea of eating Jesus’ flesh and blood into the ‘bread and wine’ which may be an important clue to the original tradition that was later circumvented and replaced by the idea of consuming flesh and blood. As John Wesley Professor emeritus in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California, Mack Burton says in his ‘Who Wrote the New Testament’, “There is no reference to Jesus’ death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material”. In sum, the Qur’an is not claiming or inventing something novel. Rather, it is restoring that original truth that has since the mid-first century overtaken by layers of false tradition and embellishments.

      • Harry says:

        Hi Ibn Anwar

        Now you are saying that Roman soldiers don’t know how to kill someone or check if they are really died.

        this is not about Jesus not being God or the crucifixion,Trinity, or the resurrection what this is about is you can’t FIND your prophet in the scriptures so you think if you can pull the scriptures apart then you and the koran have won.

        I mean it is ridiculous where you guys even twist your koran verses up

        19:33 And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive.”

        Many Muslims change the natural course of things and say Jesus didn’t die but when he returns he will die and then rise
        1. die for what? 2. rise up with who?

        i have two question

        If Muhammad is the greatest prophet why don’t we have a Muhammad second coming?

        and why is God’s enemy called the Anti-christ and not the Anti-Muhammad?

        • Ibn Anwar says:

          I will say this again, it is evident that I am speaking to a complete ignoramus. We know for a fact that there have been numerous cases of people who were thought to be dead(even in our modern times with modern medical equipment) but turned up to be alive later. There are also numerous cases of people buried alive because they were certified to be dead! For details refer to ‘Buried Alive: The Terrifying History of Our Most Primal Fear’ by Jan Bondeson. In fact, he deals with several cases in Jesus’ own time. Roman centurions were not medically trained to know for absolute certainty that a person is no longer alive. Even medical doctors today are known to have made errors as I have already mentioned.
          The verse that you cited from the Qur’an has nothing at all to do with the crucifixion! It refers to the fact that one day Jesus will die. The Islamic belief according to the hadith is that Jesus will return and die on earth as the Qur’an specifically says ‘kullun nafs za’iqatl mawt’ (every life shall taste death). Jesus will be coming back as a follower of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. He will not be coming back as a new prophet. The Qur’an specifically identifies Muhammad as the seal(khatam) of all prophets. Jesus will not be bringing a new set of laws(shari’ah) to be followed, rather he will return as a leader/general to lead the Muslims against the anti-Christ. Anti-Christ is a term adopted from Christianity. A more accurate term in Islam is the ‘false messiah'(al dajjal al masih). He is described as such because he will pose as the messiah of God(remember the Jews are still waiting for “their messiah”). The traditional Islamic view is that the dajjal will pose as that awaited messiah. These are basic concepts in Islam. The fact that you don’t know them shows that you have little to no knowledge of Islam at all.

  19. The Bull says:

    You said “there is not a single narration that can be traced back to the prophet Muhammad s.a.w. saying that someone else(e.g. Judas) was crucified in Jesus’ place..”
    Yes there is. Its called the Quran.

    You said: “It is possible that Jesus did not really die on the cross and survived the ordeal..” (of crucifixion)
    What?! Here you are admitting that it is possible Jesus was crucified! You should really throw out or modify your ‘critique of the crucifixion’ that asserts the crucifixion never happened.

    You said: “nor did the Prophet receive revelation of another made made to resemble like Jesus..”

    Surah 4:157 “…but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), …”

    In opposition to the vast majority of Biblical and mainstream scholarship, Muslims maintain that Jesus was not crucified and that he was not killed by any other means.
    -Wikipedia: Crucifixion of Jesus

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said:
      You said “there is not a single narration that can be traced back to the prophet Muhammad s.a.w. saying that someone else(e.g. Judas) was crucified in Jesus’ place..”
      Yes there is. Its called the Quran.

      My reply:
      I think it is pretty obvious to you and others that I know your Bible much more than you. Are you really trying to suggest that you know the Qur’an better than me? lol The Qur’an DOES NOT say someone else was crucified instead of Jesus.

      You said:
      You said: “It is possible that Jesus did not really die on the cross and survived the ordeal..” (of crucifixion)
      What?! Here you are admitting that it is possible Jesus was crucified! You should really throw out or modify your ‘critique of the crucifixion’ that asserts the crucifixion never happened.

      My reply:
      I am not admitting that Jesus was crucified at all. I suggested that as an alternative to the mainstream scenario. If Jesus was put on the cross but then taken down alive, is that really crucifixion in the Christian vocabulary? Don’t try to play semantics with me The Bull**** you know you will lose. If Jesus had survived the cross or crucifixion then the crucifixion according to mainstream Christian belief did not really happen. What was my conclusion in the article? Let’s reproduce it here:
      “The crucifixion of Jesus is a tale that is indeed fascinating and quite fitting for a bedtime story and can be safely placed in the fiction section in any library or bookstore. We are satisfied with concluding that the cumulative 9 contentions proposed in this critique soundly and sufficiently disprove the tale of Jesus’ crucifixion as historical fact and it should instead be called the CRUCIFICTION(coined by the late Ahmed Deedat).” The alternatives that the crucifixion never happened in any shape or form or the crucifixion did take place but Jesus survived are more historical than the idea that he was crucified and died on the cross. Notice that I did not suggest that it was impossible for Jesus to have been placed on a cross by his enemies. I maintain that the crucifixion never happened and upon analysing the records of scripture one can certainly argue that it did not happen IN THE WAY that you believe it did.

      You then cited this :
      Surah 4:157 “…but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), …”

      That is a really poor translation of the verse lol. The translator has obviously inserted his interpretation into the verse rather than just translating it. Notice that the first time you cited the verse was with this translation:
      Sura 4:157-158 reads: “…..but they killed him not, nor crucified him, BUT SO IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO THEM.”

      Any reasonable reader will be able to conclude that you’re trying to prove your flimsy uneducated contentions by hook or by crook. Try to avoid being disingenuous The Bull. The verse reads in Arabic as follows:
      وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا ٱلْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ

      وَقَوْلِهِمْ = and they said
      إِنَّا = verily, we
      قَتَلْنَا = (we) killed
      ٱلْمَسِيحَ = the messiah
      عِيسَى = ‘Isa(Jesus)
      ٱبْنَ = son of
      مَرْيَمَ = Maryam (Mary)
      رَسُولَ ٱللَّهِ = messenger of Allah
      وَمَا = and not
      قَتَلُوه = killed him
      وَمَا = and not
      صَلَبُوهُ = crucified him
      وَلَـٰكِن = rather
      شُبِّهَ = it was made to appear
      لَهُمْ = to them
      Thus the most accurate translation is, “And they said, “Verily we killed the Messiah, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” They killed him not neither did they crucify him. Rather, it was made to appear to them so.” As the German convert and commentator of the Qur’an, Muhammad Asad says:
      “Thus, the Qur’an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at “harmonizing” the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, which I render as “but it only appeared to them as if it had been so” – implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the “original sin” with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it – albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). This, to my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila 1i, “[a thing] became a fancied image to me”, i.e., “in my mind” – in other words, “[it] seemed to me” (see Qamus, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500).” (Muhammad Asad. The Message of the Qur’an. pp. 175-176)

      *No, there are no real contradictions in the Qur’an. Attempts to show that they are have been proven wrong time and again. You can try if you like and believe me you will be proven wrong.

  20. The Bull says:

    You said: “Thus the most accurate translation is, “And they said, “Verily we killed the Messiah, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” They killed him not neither did they crucify him. Rather, it was made to appear to them so.””

    In other words it was made to appear that Christ was both killed and crucified. If this is so, then my original statement holds true, namely:

    …….history should show that Christ was crucified. You should have no problem that history records the crucifixion. In fact you should expect it because the Quran says so. Can you see the logical flaw in your argument here?

    How God can make it appear to the world that Christ was crucified and killed, without actually being so, is therefore another matter that Islam also appears to have no answers for.

    You said: “I am not admitting that Jesus was crucified at all. I suggested that as an alternative to the mainstream scenario.”
    You are admitting the possibility though. Also, the ‘mainstream scenario’ is that the crucifixion happened.

    You said: “If Jesus was put on the cross but then taken down alive, is that really crucifixion in the Christian vocabulary?”
    If Jesus was put on the cross he was crucified; something which Islam does not believe. You shouldn’t even be entertaining this thought as a good Muslim.

    I’m afraid that logic has prevailed here. You may know the Quran and Bible better than me ,but then ,even you can’t win a lost case.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      The Bull…you do realise that you have thus far ignored every single one of the contentions that is found in the article against the crucifixion right? You are now trying to hold me accountable on what the Qur’an says which is interesting since you don’t know much about it in the first place. I have cited dozens of verses in the Bible to disprove the traditional Christian account of the incident and you’re now quoting only one verse from the Qur’an to support your case. Don’t you find that strange and very ironic? You’re appealing to the Qur’an to substantiate your beliefs whilst ignoring the problems that the stories of the incident face as transmitted in the New Testament. Ironic huh? lol

      You said:
      In other words it was made to appear that Christ was both killed and crucified. If this is so, then my original statement holds true, namely:

      …….history should show that Christ was crucified. You should have no problem that history records the crucifixion. In fact you should expect it because the Quran says so. Can you see the logical flaw in your argument here?

      How God can make it appear to the world that Christ was crucified and killed, without actually being so, is therefore another matter that Islam also appears to have no answers for.

      Well, the problem with you is that you did not read the explanation given by Muhammad Asad which I so kindly cited for you. The same understanding is given by Baydawi in his Anwar al-Tanzil was Asrar al-Ta’wil. The verse does not actually say that it was Allah who made it so. It is quite possible that rumours about Jesus circulated and others were gullible enough to believe them without inspection. We have already proven that in the earliest layers of tradition the alleged death of Jesus was not mentioned at all and even in those that did prominence to it was all but non-existent. Romantic ideas about Jesus’ death began to emerge decades later starting with Mark’s gospel. In any case, even if Jesus was placed on the cross, yet he survived then by the very definition of the word in Christian dogma he was not crucified. In the Christian definition of crucifixion, it entails the fixing and true killing of Jesus on the cross. If Jesus had survived and was not killed on the cross, then he was NOT crucified by Christian definition of the term. Remember that the term UNCRUCIFIED does not exist in English vocabulary, hence cruciFICTION is indeed an acceptable and reasonable new word for Jesus’ survival.

  21. The Bull says:

    You said : ‘You’re appealing to the Qur’an to substantiate your beliefs..’
    A: Is that a bad thing?

    You said: ‘even if Jesus was placed on the cross, yet he survived then by the very definition of the word in Christian dogma he was not crucified. In the Christian definition of crucifixion, it entails the fixing and true killing of Jesus on the cross..’
    A: The point is the world would have seen him as crucified. To onlookers, Jesus would be crucified. You suggest (surprisingly) that he could have been crucified and removed later. That is another issue that does not affect the point of my position.

    You said: ‘It is quite possible that rumours about Jesus circulated and others were gullible enough to believe them without inspection’
    A: No. It APPEARED to them and … .’those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof..’. That means YOU. No mention of rumours or conjecture. If it APPEARED to HAPPEN then there must have been some kind of evidence. What you are suggesting is that someone concocted the story of the crucifixion well after the event and that people swallowed it. This is not only illogical and goes against mainstream scholarship, but it also disagrees with the Quran’s position.

    That is why more than one translation of the Quran suggests God placed the likeness of Jesus over another. Do you really know more than the translators of the Quran? E.g. Dr. Ghali, Muhsin Khan and the Sahih International translators?

    The verse says: “Verily WE (the witnesses) killed the Messiah, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” (emphasis added). Also the verse does not make sense because why would anyone knowingly kill the Messiah the messenger of Allah?
    The only thing that could make sense for you position is that God permitted Satan to deceive the world that Jesus was crucified.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said:
      You said : ‘You’re appealing to the Qur’an to substantiate your beliefs..’
      A: Is that a bad thing?

      My Reply:
      Well, it’s not a bad thing if you’re being genuine in your approach. It is evident that you’re not. This is what I said in context:
      The Bull…you do realise that you have thus far ignored every single one of the contentions that is found in the article against the crucifixion right? You are now trying to hold me accountable on what the Qur’an says which is interesting since you don’t know much about it in the first place. I have cited dozens of verses in the Bible to disprove the traditional Christian account of the incident and you’re now quoting only one verse from the Qur’an to support your case. Don’t you find that strange and very ironic? You’re appealing to the Qur’an to substantiate your beliefs whilst ignoring the problems that the stories of the incident face as transmitted in the New Testament. Ironic huh? lol
      Christian clowns like the Bull: Oh my God, the Bible does not help me to prove my case! I need to go to the Qur’an quickly before I lose face!!!!

      You said:
      You said: ‘even if Jesus was placed on the cross, yet he survived then by the very definition of the word in Christian dogma he was not crucified. In the Christian definition of crucifixion, it entails the fixing and true killing of Jesus on the cross..’
      A: The point is the world would have seen him as crucified. To onlookers, Jesus would be crucified. You suggest (surprisingly) that he could have been crucified and removed later. That is another issue that does not affect the point of my position.

      My reply:
      The whole world would have seen him as crucified? I didn’t know they had CNN in Jesus’ time? You realise of course that even in the crucifixion accounts given in the gospels hardly anyone was present at the scene at Calvary right? Numerous scholars question the veracity of John’s inclusion of the presence of the Marys and the beloved disciple at the alleged crime scene as well as the piercing of Jesus’ side by the centurion. This has been understood as a creative ploy undertaken by the author of John to curb growing doubts concerning Jesus’ alleged death in his time as noted by Raymond Brown, Mack Burton and Geoffrey Parrinder.

      You said:
      You said: ‘It is quite possible that rumours about Jesus circulated and others were gullible enough to believe them without inspection’
      A: No. It APPEARED to them and … .’those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof..’. That means YOU. No mention of rumours or conjecture. If it APPEARED to HAPPEN then there must have been some kind of evidence. What you are suggesting is that someone concocted the story of the crucifixion well after the event and that people swallowed it. This is not only illogical and goes against mainstream scholarship, but it also disagrees with the Quran’s position.

      My reply:
      Are you really telling me what the Qur’anic position is The Bull****? Do stop being a clown and smell the coffee. Who are the ones who have been disputing about Jesus’ death if not the Christians? Look at the gospels themselves! I have produced several clear cut discrepancies and contradictions in the narratives presented in the gospels. It is you who disagree that the crucifixion is a hoax which the section of the verse ‘those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no certain knowledge’ addresses and you say it refers to me and then you say you know the Qur’anic position hahaha. This is really sad seeing someone who knows little of the Qur’an and the Bible trying to teach me what either one says and making a whole lot of errors left right and centre. I did not suggest that someone concocted a story about Jesus’ death and later people believed it. This is Baydawi’s suggestion in his commentary on the Qur’an. He is one of the top exegetes of the Qur’an. How is it illogical? We have already discussed elsewhere that things can be fabricated in history like 1 John 5:7 and people would continue beliving in its historical value for centuries without question. That’s just one example out of so many in the Bible! Things are made up and credulous people swallowed them up. I have already discussed mainstream methodology in the article which you have yet to address! Let us reproducewhat I said about it here:
      “It is often claimed in Evangelical circles and by Christian missionaries that there is a consensus among scholars and historians both conservative and liberal that Jesus certainly died on the cross. This is misleading. There are scholars who argue that because there is such a paucity in early reliable historical records attesting to Jesus’ existence that must mean that he is a myth, a legend, a fiction. Granted that the circle of scholars of this persuasian is small in number that does not discount the fact that they exist. Tom Harpur who was professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe(The Pagan Christ), Bruno Bauer (Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin), Earl Doherty(The Jesus Puzzle), Prof. G.A. Wells(The Historical Evidence for Jesus), Prof. Michael Martin(The Case Against Christianity) are some of the scholars who have questioned Jesus’ existence. Thus to continue claiming that all scholars both liberal and conservative agree on the crucifixion is untrue. Undoubtedly, a vast majority of scholars say the crucifixion happened, but not without serious qualification. They do not say it as a fact, but rather as a probable occurence. Historians involved in this area of study base their judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data. Using the historical method scholars comb through available historical materials, assess them and thereafter produce what they think to be the most probable conclusion. Historians using the critical historical method do not recognise supernatural events because they are the least probable occurences which is why God cannot be in the equation hence discounting both resurrection and Jesus’ ascent to heaven as historical(at least according to the historical method). A person living 2000 years ago would be regarded as dead because it is highly improbable(or impossible) for a man to live that long. Because Jesus lived around 2000 years ago historians conclude that he must have died. This is of course according to the critical historical method. The real question that historians are interested in is how he died. And for this they look at the historical records surrounding the person Jesus. According to their perspective based on their research the most probable explanation or cause for Jesus’ death is the crucifixion. Thus many modern (non-Muslim) historians have no qualms over Jesus’ death itself not because they think that Jesus was factually and definitely crucified but because a man living 2000 years ago cannot still be alive. In this article we will be looking closely at some of those major data and sources used to propose that Jesus died by crucifixion. God willing, we will illustrate by proposing nine contentions(using historical and theological arguments) that the historical material employed are insufficient in proving the crucifixion and that Jesus certainly did not die the shameful death of a crucified man.”

      “That is why more than one translation of the Quran suggests God placed the likeness of Jesus over another. Do you really know more than the translators of the Quran? E.g. Dr. Ghali, Muhsin Khan and the Sahih International translators?”

      Hahaha….you’re playing that game now? well, unlike you who don’t know Greek which is why you need to rely on translators to understand the Bible I can easily translate the verse for you by myself from the Arabic WHICH I DID just two comments before! I can also explain every grammatical feature that the verse has if you like since I’ve studied Arabic for more than 7 years lol…not that you will be able to comprehend them anyway lol. It is the translator’s prerogative to project his interpretation into his translation, but that will not give you the accurate meaning of the actual words in the original language. In fact, Zamakhshari in his Al-Kashhaf discusses the point that the grammatical subject of shubbiha does not accomodate the interpretation that someone else was made to look like Jesus. He considers three possibilities as mentioned by Neal Robinson:
      1. The subject is the Messiah. The objection to this is that the Messiah is the one who was resembled not the one who resembled.
      2. The subject is the person whom they killed. The objection to this that the person whom they killed has not been mentioned. (this is the case on the issue of ‘na’il fa’il’ which requires that the subject that the action of killing happens to be mentioned in the jumlah or sentence which is not the case here).
      3. The verb is impersonal. It is like the common expression khuyila la-hu (‘It seemed to him’). It is as though what was said were (waqa’a la-hum al-tashbihu) (‘the resemblance occured to them’)
      (Robinson, N. (1991). Christ in Islam and Christianity: The Representation of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Classical Muslim Commentaries. London: MacMillan Press Ltd. pp. 134)
      The jewel of commentators Al-Razi in his Tafsir al-Kabir after assessing the narrations about the substitution says that they contradict one another and should be summarily rejected. These are giants of the religion whose scholarship overshadows and outshines all the translators of the Qur’an put together. Muhammad Asad’s commentary is perhaps the most analytical and represents a critical conclusion to some of the formulations that the classical commentators like Al-Razi, Zamakhshari and Baydawi came up with, albeit they may not themselves have arrived at the definitive final conclusion that Muhammad Asad did.

      You said:
      The verse says: “Verily WE (the witnesses) killed the Messiah, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” (emphasis added). Also the verse does not make sense because why would anyone knowingly kill the Messiah the messenger of Allah?
      The only thing that could make sense for you position is that God permitted Satan to deceive the world that Jesus was crucified.

      My reply:
      Read Deuteronomy 31 and Jesus’ own words, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ye killed the prophets…”. The Jews were in the habit of rebelling knowingly against God and his messengers from the time of Moses itself. Why do you contend otherwise? It is obvious that the Qur’anic reference here is formulated as a mockery that the Jews believed and said as did the Romans who placed the wooden plaque atop the cross saying something along the lines of “the King of the Jews”. You have not produced a single thing of substantive value and I will ask you to please refrain from repeating yourself. The article and its nine contentions remain unchallenged and most of the points that I have mentioned in our exchanges here have also gone unchallenged. You have lost yet again. I admire your resolve, but you need to wake up from your deep slumber.

  22. The Bull says:

    You said: (concerning Josephus) “Scholars have long suspected the above to be spurious..”
    A: You should say the minority of scholars.

    You said: “The verse in John 20:25 reads, “The other disciples therefore said to him, We have seen the LORD. But he said to them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” I don’t see the verse saying that Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed. It speaks of his side. Where is his side alluded to in Psalms 22? Nowhere. How do we know the exact nature of the imprint made by the nails? We don’t. Many scholars including Raymond E. Brown doubts the authenticity of this text.”

    A: I think it is plainly obvious that Thomas and the other disciples knew that if Christ was crucified (which was the method of execution then) that there would be nail prints left behind from the crucifixion. Historically this is the only real position. How else would nail marks get there? Jesus fell over and his hands hit nails? You tell me.

    Sure the feet are not mentioned specifically but the verse does support the fact that the disciples thought Christ was crucified with nails. I guess you would like the crown of thorns mentioned in Psalm 22 as well as the spear? You have ample evidence from two other witnesses namely the ‘abandonment cry’ and the ‘casting of lots’ to see that the crucifixion scenario is being played out here. Your opinion that the gospels were made to align with this scenario is just that. Your opinion. You have to face the fact that only the Gospels (through Christ) claim to fill this scenario in history. Then you have all the other witnesses in scripture.

    You said: “Colossians 2:14 reads:
    “having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”
    Where does it say that Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed?”
    A: It doesn’t, but it does indicate that nails were used in the crucifixion which in turn supports the LXX and DSS rendition of Psalm 22 over the much later MT.

    You said: “If the man was horrendously cursed beyond reckoning taking up sins like rape, murder, paedophilia, lying, stealing etc. etc. etc. who died for his salvation? Did he die for himself? How could he have died for himself when he became tainted? Please do not avoid all these logical problems and try to provide some clarification.”

    A:
    Hosea 13:14:
    “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction.”

    1 Corinthians 15:55-57:
    “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    You see here that God has ‘defeated death’. Jesus died because he took all the grotesque sins of the world upon himself. Jesus died because he was ‘tainted’. He was separated from God and died both physically and spiritually. Here is the thing. You can’t kill God. Because of his power and righteousness he was able to die for the sins of the world without being destroyed forever (as anyone else would be).

    You said: “What about Micah 5:2? Was Jesus really born in Bethlehem or was it fashioned like that to fulfill prophesy by the anonymous authors?”

    A: Micah 5:2 presents another problem for you. You can speculate that the Gospels were ‘fashioned’ to fulfill this prophesy, however, you can’t get away from the fact that it says God was born in Bethlehem! (‘origins from everlasting!’) Who does the NT suggest who is both God and Man?

    You said: (in another post (Dr.Anis.S)): “But even if I were to concede the passage that does not mean that it proves God incarnated as man. Rather it was the word of God which is God’s creative ability to create(Genesis 1:3)described as ‘theos’(in an adjectival sense) that became flesh. The logos was something abstract that took physical shape and form when God decreed it to be so.”

    A: You asserted in this post about John 1 not implying that Christ was both God and man. You can’t avoid it because verse 14 says that the Word became flesh and we beheld HIS glory. Also we have John (the Baptist) mentioned preparing the way (v6,7,15). There is no doubt this passage speaks of Christ as the Word, who is also God. As in many cases your view point seems to go against the logical and mainstream interpretation. How you come up with some of the stuff you do is really quite remarkable!

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said:
      A: You should say the minority of scholars.

      My reply:
      You should say that academia is not a democracy. It certainly helps to have the numbers, but the real value of a position lies in its own merits and how well it can be defended by proponents. I will reproduce my complete comments on the Testimonium one more time:
      “Scholars have long suspected the above to be spurious. Questions regarding the authenticity of this particular passage have been raised since the 16th century as Raymond Brown notes in his volume one of The Death of the Messiah on page 374. Today it is widely rejected as a forgery attributed to Josephus. Raymond E. Brown on the same page of his work cites a number of authorities who rejected the text as outright inauthentic which includes Battifol, Birdsall, Burkitt, Conzelmann, Hahn, L. Hermann, Lagrange, Norden and Zeitlin. It is historically known that Josephus was a Jew and died as one. He did not convert to Christianity at any point in time. It goes without saying that being a Jew he would have hardly attested Jesus’ Christhood and his rising again fulfilling the prophecies of the prophets of old. Had he believed in such Christian doctrines he would have been a Christian. The early church father Origen explicitly states in Against Celcus, 1.47 and in his Commentary on Matthew, 10.17 that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Had the passage been authentically written by Josephus surely the early church fathers of the second and third centuries quoted him especially when they cite him regarding Old Testament interpretations. The earliest citation of the text is from the fourth century by Eusebius of Caesaria in Demonstratio Evangelica or The Proof of the Gospel. That’s over 400 years of a gap which is more than enough time to fake a document. Impossible to be traced back to Josephus it is indeed a fake. It is noteworthy that Raymond E. Brown prefers the position of partial-interpolation where Josephus is thought to have written the basic text and the special references to Jesus e.g. as Messiah are later Christian interpolations. In discussing this however, Brown does not offer any definite substantiation for this position. In fact, he merely describes it as “plausible”. The Testimonium is found in all the mss. of Ant. [15] and none omits the special references to Christ which leads us to contend that the whole text must have been forged.”

      You said:
      A: I think it is plainly obvious that Thomas and the other disciples knew that if Christ was crucified (which was the method of execution then) that there would be nail prints left behind from the crucifixion. Historically this is the only real position. How else would nail marks get there? Jesus fell over and his hands hit nails? You tell me.

      Sure the feet are not mentioned specifically but the verse does support the fact that the disciples thought Christ was crucified with nails. I guess you would like the crown of thorns mentioned in Psalm 22 as well as the spear? You have ample evidence from two other witnesses namely the ‘abandonment cry’ and the ‘casting of lots’ to see that the crucifixion scenario is being played out here. Your opinion that the gospels were made to align with this scenario is just that. Your opinion. You have to face the fact that only the Gospels (through Christ) claim to fill this scenario in history. Then you have all the other witnesses in scripture.

      My reply:
      Raymond Brown and others have noted that the scene of the piercing is a Johannine literary invention(quite probably in refutation to growing doubts about Jesus’ death among gnostics). This means that the text in John 20:28 is also to be discarded as it is a follow-up to the said invention containing the imprint of the alleged piercing.

      You said: “Colossians 2:14 reads:
      “having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”
      Where does it say that Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed?”
      A: It doesn’t, but it does indicate that nails were used in the crucifixion which in turn supports the LXX and DSS rendition of Psalm 22 over the much later MT.

      My reply:
      No, it does not indicate that nails were used. Nowhere does the verse say that a person gets nailed to the cross in a crucifixion. It could very well be Paul’s figurative way of saying that the law was nailed on the stauros without containing the idea of a method of crucifixion. With regards to the LXX and DSS rendering of Psalms 22:16/17 go to my recent article on this here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....psalms-22/. Itook the trouble of writing the whole thing as a response to you. I’m amazed you haven’t noticed it. Please read it carefully.

      You said:
      You said: “What about Micah 5:2? Was Jesus really born in Bethlehem or was it fashioned like that to fulfill prophesy by the anonymous authors?”

      A: Micah 5:2 presents another problem for you. You can speculate that the Gospels were ‘fashioned’ to fulfill this prophesy, however, you can’t get away from the fact that it says God was born in Bethlehem! (‘origins from everlasting!’) Who does the NT suggest who is both God and Man?

      My reply:
      If Jesus is God’s creation then obviously his origins can be traced back to God hence the phrase “מקדם מימי עולם” (mikkedem mimie olam). To have an origin is to have a beginning and Matthew 1:18 speaks of the “γένεσις”(genesis) of Jesus. God who is everlasting is without an origin. In fact, the verse disproves Jesus’ divinity as it clearly says two verses later that this person will have YHWH as “אלהיו” or HIS GOD. If Micah 5:2 refers to Jesus then he is clearly not YHWH.

      You said:
      “A: You asserted in this post about John 1 not implying that Christ was both God and man. You can’t avoid it because verse 14 says that the Word became flesh and we beheld HIS glory. Also we have John (the Baptist) mentioned preparing the way (v6,7,15). There is no doubt this passage speaks of Christ as the Word, who is also God. As in many cases your view point seems to go against the logical and mainstream interpretation. How you come up with some of the stuff you do is really quite remarkable!

      My reply:
      With all due respect I do not think you are familiar with modern scholarship. You have not at all refuted any of the points in my explanation for John 1. I do not have to repeat it here since it is obvious that you are unable to produce anything of substance to anything that I put forward. Please do not repeat yourself again in your next comment.

  23. The Bull says:

    ‘Thanks’ for writing the article on psalm 22. I have read it. I will read it again and perhaps comment in due time.

  24. mr says:

    “You see here that God has ‘defeated death’. Jesus died because he took all the grotesque sins of the world upon himself. ”

    if god in human flesh pleased/appeased god the father and god the spirit, then WHO appeased/pleased god the son? what do you mean’You can’t kill God.’ when the meat puppet of god was squashed was the trinity handicaped? you still had ghost god and father god living eternally.
    then what kind of a cheap sacrifice was this if you can’t kill god. don’t you get it through your THICK kristian head that if human death mean ” destroyed forever” and jesus death was only for a fraction of a second, then he didn’t suffer at all. if i chop of my arm and in a fraction of a second the arm grows back , then i suffered only for a fraction of a second. do you see? how did my sin in 2011 jump all the way back to the day of crucifxion? say i rape a christian woman, does that mean i raped jesus on the cross? or did god see the rape in the future in his MIND and made it fly back to the day of crucifixion? if that is so, then isn’t god at fault and responsible?CONSIDER THAT I WOULD BE UNCONCIOUS , I WOULDN’T EVEN EXIST.I wouldn’t even have A FREAKIN SAY. here is another way to put it. god WILLED the roman soldiers to be humans, right? did he will them to be humans so that he can allow them to squash his meat puppet? if that is so, then isn’t it gods fault for 1) willing the romans into EXISTENCE 2) ALLOWING them to nail him to a cross.god defeated death? does that mean that death which he CREATED defeated him temporarily? it controlled him? did god defeat AIDS by getting AIDS? did god defeat homosexuality by becoming homosexual/gay?

    “Jesus died because he was ‘tainted’. He was separated from God and died both physically and spiritually.”

    if you can die spiritually then wtf was the point of the flesh dying? is the flesh and blood god also or is the spirit? did the spirit destroy itself forever and ever? no it didn’t.who seperated god from god? did the romans? if no, then whose fault was it for seperating himself from himself? was the rape of the meat puppet a TRIGGER for SEPERATION/DIVORCE?

    ” Here is the thing. You can’t kill God. Because of his power and righteousness he was able to die for the sins of the world without being destroyed forever (as anyone else would be).”

    you making his power and righeousness as his RULERS/BOSS. as if they are his commander and cheif. as if these ATTRIBUTES need PLEASING . YOU are POLYTHIEST gentile. you only know god as a jew, like pagan know there gods as gentile gods.

    notice his polythiestic words ‘ you can’t kill god’ but that doesn’t mean you can’t try to. to these christians god is ONLY knowable when he shi ts and pisses and cries . he has to stink aswell . this is how god is knowable to them. god liked the polythiestic idea of incarnation so gave it a try.

    god is ‘holy’ ‘righteous’ ‘sinless’ ‘has human like FEELINGS’

    MAY THE REAL GOD SEND YOUR FILTHY RELIGION INTO ETERNAL DAMNATION . AMEN!

  25. The Bull says:

    Ibn anwar said: “The epologue in John has its roots in Philo’s writings and because we can’t identify who the author of the fourt gospel is we cannot possibily trace it back to Jesus or his disciples.”

    A: That is simply not true. Although the author is not named, he is indicated as ‘the beloved disciple’ (John 21:20,23, 24), who wrote ‘these things’. Further to this we have the second generation of believers such as Polycarp who was recorded as a disciple of John and spoke to others who had seen Jesus.

    Ibn Anwar said: “In any case Paul said, “For to us there is but ONE GOD, the Father and one mediator between God and man, THE MAN Jesus Christ.”. Notice that the emphasis on manhood.
    AND
    If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to “Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union,” does this require that these three countries are one physical country?”

    A: No, but who is the holy spirit then? Plus why not include Moses or Abraham? Clearly the name of Jesus is elevated above all in Pauls writings.
    Romans 14:11 echos Isaiahs statement in 45:23 that every knee shall bow to God. Yet we read in Philipians 2:10 that every knee shall bow to Christ and he has the highest name? (2:9). Then you have Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16-17 and Revelation 1:11,17,18.

    Ibn Anwar said: “Elsewhere baptism is spoken of as being in or through the name of Jesus( for example, see Acts 2:38, 10:48; Rom 6:3, 1 Cor 1:13,15 and 6:11).”

    A: What is baptism? Everything the servant of God does should be done in and for the glory of his name…..yes? Why on earth would anyone want to be baptised into the name of a mere man? A sinful mortal man? Jesus was sinless. Were any of the other prophets?

    Ibn Anwar said : “The miracles that Jesus performed made him no more divine than Moses who also did equally amazing feats of miracles. Jesus revived the dead, that is, those who once were once living. A find a similar example in modern times in the resuscitation of someone whose heart stops through CPR and the defibrillator.”

    A: Not so. Jesus raised the dead after 4 days. Those revived today are at most ‘clinically’ dead and are revived mere minutes later. Lets not forget his ressurection either!

    Indeed the likeness of ‘Eesaa (Jesus) before Allaah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: “Be!” – and he was” (3:59)

    A: Even if your position of Micah 5:2 is accepted, clearly it disagrees with this quote form the Quran?. This statement also contradicts the virgin birth that you are supposed to believe in.

    Ibn Anwar said: “This isn’t nit picking The Bull****. This is called exposing the lies of Christianity. What does one make of an author who is said to be inspired by God making a clear mistake at the very beginning of his book which is supposed to contain truth?”

    A: It’s not a lie. A lie implies a deliberate attempt at deception. It’s a copyist error or a simple omission! We don’t actually know for sure. The prophesy was apparently referenced incorrectly in part, but it makes no difference, as the prophesy itself is not a lie. You make it sound like some sinister plot!

    Ibn Anwar said :”Yet, who was responsible and thereafter cursed? Ham was responsible, but, who was made to pay? Was it Ham? No, Canaan an innocent little child was made to pay for the error of Ham. The father who’s responsible was reprieved and the son who’s innocent was punished. Further more, why was Canaan out of 4 siblings singled out? Is this justice or madness?”

    A: Perhaps God knew Canaan was going to be a ‘ratbag’ in advance.

    Ibn Anwar said : “Haven’t you heard of the Mormons? Is their version of Jesus Christ acceptable to you? They have millions of followers! This stupid project that you have suggested have gone on for centuries.”

    A: They didn’t invent the story of Jesus Christ. Like Muslims they are using it to support their story. Actually, Islam and Mormonism have some striking similarities. In both religions and ‘angel’ appeared to one individual with ‘new’ revelation. In contrast to this the history, miracles and teaching of Moses and Jesus were witnessed openly. Islam in this sense is a ‘closed’ religion. Be warned.

    Also, because of the authenticity and power of the Gospel, any new religion must pay some kind of homage to Christianity or risk oblivion.

    Ibn Anwar said : “We have already proven that there is not a shred of evidence outside the New Testament for Jesus’ alleged crucifixion.”

    A: Polycarp spoke of the cross (Polycarp 7:1, 12:3). Clement (1 Clement 7:4) also and Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1) write of ‘the blood’ of Christ, atonement concepts and the resurrection, all supporting the crucifixion scenario. These were people who knew people who knew Christ! They lived in the 1st Century! They heard the testimony from the ‘horses’ mouth! Surely their testomony is powerful.

    Ibn anwar said: “Thus many modern (non-Muslim) historians have no qualms over Jesus’ death itself not because they think that Jesus was factually and definitely crucified but because a man living 2000 years ago cannot still be alive.”

    A: You’re trying to pull wool over our eyes here. It’s not his death that is being debated here. It’s his manner of death. The majority of historians believe Jesus Christ was crucified.

    In opposition to the vast majority of Biblical and mainstream scholarship, Muslims maintain that Jesus was not crucified and that he was not killed by any other means.
    -Wikipedia: Crucifixion of Jesus

    It might be appropriate for you to now fall on your sword graciously. It will show strength and humility.

    • Imad says:

      The Bull said: “That is simply not true. Although the author is not named, he is indicated as ‘the beloved disciple’ (John 21:20,23, 24), who wrote ‘these things’. Further to this we have the second generation of believers such as Polycarp who was recorded as a disciple of John and spoke to others who had seen Jesus.”

      Wrong. It was Irenaeus, who wrote that he was a student of Polycarp and that his teacher was a disciple of John in his ‘Letter to Florinus’, a totally unverifiable claim that simply cannot stand on its own merit. If Polycarp knew John, then maybe you want to explain why he there is a total absence of the mention of his presence in Asia in the writings of both Ignatius and Polycarp himself. Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna and yet mentions nowhere that John was in Smyrna or anywhere else in Asia. The silence is damning. Ignatius had a habit of connecting the cities he was addressing to the apostles of Jesus who were there. So when he wrote to the Romans, he mentioned both Peter and Paul in connection to the city. In his letter to the Ephesians, which was written from Smyrna, he mentions Paul in connection with Ephesus but not John. Exceedingly odd don’t you think?

      The Bull said: “Not so. Jesus raised the dead after 4 days. Those revived today are at most ‘clinically’ dead and are revived mere minutes later. Lets not forget his ressurection either!”

      Ibn Anwar is right. If Jesus’ miracles are any proof of divinity, then Moses has more right to be worshiped. Behold, you speak of 4 days? Moses gave life to something that had been dead for YEARS, namely his staff. He turned it into a living serpent. And then performed another miracle by turning it back into a dead stick. So he performed a double miracle.

      The Bull said: “It’s a copyist error or a simple omission! We don’t actually know for sure.”

      Ah I see. So the Holy Spirit isn’t infallible after all. Perhaps you are the one that needs to ‘fall on his sword’?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      A: That is simply not true. Although the author is not named, he is indicated as ‘the beloved disciple’ (John 21:20,23, 24), who wrote ‘these things’. Further to this we have the second generation of believers such as Polycarp who was recorded as a disciple of John and spoke to others who had seen Jesus.

      My reply:
      I have discussed the anonymity of the gospels in full here http://unveiling-christianity......r-gospels/. How many times do I have to instruct you to go there? As Father Professor Raymand E. Brown says, ““The view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held in about 95% of contemporary critical scholarship.” (Brown, R. E (1990). Response to 101 Questions on the Bible. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. p. 59-60)
      Was it really John as first identified by Iranaeus that according to you received the information from Polycarp? Pheme Perkins explains:
      “…bishop Iranaeus of Lyons (d. 202), defended the apostolicity of John and its inclusion in the Christian canon of four Gospels by appealing to the tradition that was circulating in Asia Minor in his time. He affirmed that it was composed by the Beloved Disciple, named John, at Ephesus toward the end of his life…However, Iranaeus also appears to have confused the apostle, John the son of Zebedee, with a prebyster from Asia Minor known as John.Since Iranaeus claims to have received his information as a child from Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna (d. 156), we should not be overly surprised at the confusion. The church historian Eusebius also recognized that Iranaeus had confused two different persons known as “John”. (Perkins, P. (1990). The Gospel According to John. In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy (Eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 946-947)
      In addition modern scholars recognise that the Christological presentation in the Gospel according to John is too highly developed to have come from a Galilean fisherman(John’s trade according to tradition) as noted by Perkins (Ibid.).
      In my article I cite R.T. France who clearly says, “And so we find Iranaeus (bishop of Lyons about A.D. 180) naming all four as they are now named, and as the first to do so.” (France, R.T. (1986). The Evidence for Jesus. London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 122)

      You said:
      A: No, but who is the holy spirit then? Plus why not include Moses or Abraham? Clearly the name of Jesus is elevated above all in Pauls writings.
      Romans 14:11 echos Isaiahs statement in 45:23 that every knee shall bow to God. Yet we read in Philipians 2:10 that every knee shall bow to Christ and he has the highest name? (2:9). Then you have Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16-17 and Revelation 1:11,17,18.

      My reply:
      You’re missing the point. Paul clearly identifies the Father as God and Jesus as the man between whom believers and God are bridged. The distinctions are quite explicit. Just because Jesus’ name is elevated above all others does not necessitate divinity on his part. Muhammad s.a.w. is believed to be the highest name in all of creation by orthodox sunni Muslims, yet none ascribe divinity to him just because of that. What about Romans 14:11 and Philippians 2:10 in light of Isaiah 45:23? Well, the action of bowing down itself by no means make the subject of the bowing divine e.g. Daniel 2:46. King Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel because of the latter’s God i.e. Daniel was His messenger. I have already explained the concept of Shaliach(agency) to you. I’ll explain it one more time. Say you have speakers on your computer and I am your King. You start hearing my voice and you tremble in awe and fall down in obeisance. Are you falling down to the speakers or the voice? In reality you are bowing down to me even though I may not be exactly in front of you to receive your bow. The speakers signify Jesus through which God speaks and so the worshipping/proskoneo of Jesus is actually in reality directed to the One who sent him. Remember 1 Timothy 6:16 which clearly says that God dwells in an unapproachable light which means that you can’t actually approach and worship Him. Jesus then will be like a symbol for God i.e. His agent. Recall my analogy of an ambassador and his state of origin wherein the President whom he represents resides in.
      What about Hebrews 1:8? Let’s have a look at what the Harvard scholar and theologian, Andrews Norton has to say about the verse:
      “Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an inferior sense. This is admitted by some of the most respectable Trinitarian critics. Thus, the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: “Here the Son is addressed by the title God: but the context shows that it is an official title which designates him as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne and a scepter; and in verse 9 he is compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting.” (Norton, A. (1856). A Statement of Reasons for not Believing the Doctrine of Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ. Boston: American Unitarian Association. pp. 301)

      What about Colossians 1:16-17?
      Verse 16 as noted by scholars like E.W. Bullinger in his ‘Figures of Speech Used in the Bible’ involves a figure of speech known as “encircling” or “epanadiplosis” in Greek. Notice that in the verse the phrase “all things were created” is repeated, hence encircling the items that were created namely, “things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities…” The verse isn’t identifying Jesus as the creator of every atom in the universe, every rock and plant on earth etc. Rather it designates Jesus as the progenitor of authority in the ekklessia that he started. Maurya P. Horgan in his commentary on Colossians regarding the verse writes, “These created entities are presented in Col as angelic beings that are subordinate to Christ (these terms are used also to refer to earthly powers…).(Horgan, M.P. (1990). The Letter to the Colossians. In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy (Eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Op. Cit. pp. 879). Verse 17 where the term “pro” is used refers to his pre-eminent position in God’s record and not necessarily his personal pre-existence. The very next verse identifies him as the “firstborn” from among the dead and so the idea of before all things should be understood in light of that expression used immediately thereafter.
      What about Revelation 1:11?
      You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation. The expression does not appear in the NIV and other versions of the Bible as textual scholars have noted that it is a later interpolation.
      What about verse 17? With regards to falling down and meeting the floor, I have already indicated that this is done to others like Daniel and they are not made into objects of divine worship. An important point to note is that proskuneo is used for others besides God, but “letreuo” which means religious worship or service is never used for Jesus and is specifically for God, the Father. What about the expression, “the first and the last”? Does that make Jesus God since God in the Old Testament is identified as such in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12? This is the typical unscriptural Trinitarian game afoot. Jesus must be God because he shares some attributes ascribed to him with those that are known to be God’s. In another response I have already shown that such a method is fallacious if you you’re a Bible believing Christian. I gave the example of Melchizedek who is basically described as eternal which is supposed to be God’s unique characteristic, yet the only response I was given by The Bull is, “nah, I don’t believe this”. This is the level of education we are witnessing here. The Bible time and again identifies God as THE ONLY saviour such as in Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:21 and Hosea 13:4. The typical Trinitarian will then find you verses where Jesus is called saviour e.g. Acts 13:23 and lo and behold God and Jesus are one. But what they fail to tell you is that others beside God and Jesus are called the same such as those in 2 Kings 13:5, Nehemiah 9:27, and Obadiah 1:21. Following the Trinitarian’s logic those too ought to be made Gods and deserve to be religiously worshiped. We see then just because Jesus is described in a way that may resemble God, that does not neseccitate divinity on his part. In any case, Revelation is a collection of dreams that is not based on actual historical incidences and it went through much difficulty before being widely accepted as canonical and even then theologians like Martin Luther wanted to expunge it from the canon.

      You said:
      A: What is baptism? Everything the servant of God does should be done in and for the glory of his name…..yes? Why on earth would anyone want to be baptised into the name of a mere man? A sinful mortal man? Jesus was sinless. Were any of the other prophets?

      My reply:
      Once again, you are missing the point. The discussion was on the authenticity of the so called Trinitarian formula in the last passage of Matthew. Those examples were provided to illustrate the unreliability of the instruction supposedly given by Jesus to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is a later “ecclesiatical addition” as I have shown in my previous response and in my article on the verse. Were any of the other prophets sinless? Do you have a problem with your memory? We have already gone through this months ago elsewhere. I have won that round like all the others. I will ask you one last time not to repeat yourself after having been refuted and offering no counter-rebuttals at all. Theologically, I see no problem at all with baptising in the name of Jesus by his followers in his dispensation since in Islam we are allowed, nay encouraged to do things in the name of Muhammad(as an intecessor) s.a.w.

      You said:
      A: Not so. Jesus raised the dead after 4 days. Those revived today are at most ‘clinically’ dead and are revived mere minutes later. Lets not forget his ressurection either!

      My reply:
      Are you mentally retarded? My God! I have already proven that others besides Jesus in the Old Testament such as Elisha raised the dead! In fact, Elisha’s BONES gave life to a dead man! I have also illustrated that Moses’ miracle in giving life to an inanimate object turning it into something else altogether is far superior to simply raising someone who has died. Read everything I say in context and stop trying to misrepresent my arguments.

      You said:
      Indeed the likeness of ‘Eesaa (Jesus) before Allaah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: “Be!” – and he was” (3:59)

      A: Even if your position of Micah 5:2 is accepted, clearly it disagrees with this quote form the Quran?. This statement also contradicts the virgin birth that you are supposed to believe in.

      My reply:
      You know that you have been refuted and now you’re just grasping at straws. Earlier you claimed the verse refers to Jesus, but I proved otherwise and showed that if it is about Jesus then he is not YHWH based on the next two verses. You have no shame and continue in your blindness even though you know you have been soundly refuted. Refer to Hans Walter Wolff on his commentary on Micah from pages 145 to 146 translated by Gary Stansell and published by Augsberg Press in 1990 or its original German in 1982. He does not mention Jesus at all in his 2 page long discussion on it. Refer also to Leslie C. Allen in his commentary on Micah from pages 342 to 347, published by Eerdmans Publishing Co. in 1976. He too does not mention Jesus at all in his lengthy discussion spanning 5 pages long. I cannot understand your silliness in citing that verse from the Qur’an. And there I was earlier thinking that this must be the threshold of his ignorance. I was proven wrong, sadly. The Qur’anic verse that you cited does not say exactness, but likeness. Know the difference! It is talking about the fact that God intervened in both persons’ creation and that one is no superior to the other in terms of their genesis since for God it is easy to create anything. If God can create Adam without parents then He can do the job of creating Jesus without a father. Can you understand this very simple concept? I really hope so or there is just no hope for you.

      You said:
      A: It’s not a lie. A lie implies a deliberate attempt at deception. It’s a copyist error or a simple omission! We don’t actually know for sure. The prophesy was apparently referenced incorrectly in part, but it makes no difference, as the prophesy itself is not a lie. You make it sound like some sinister plot!

      My reply:
      I did not say that the author of Mark lies. I said CHRISTIANITY lies. If it tries to pass this off as truth and yet we know it is false then the only option left is that the movement responsible is a lie. Can you understand this simple equation? The author is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit and is supposed to be associated with Jesus’ own disciples, yet he makes a clear error at the very beginning? What does that tell the reasonable person? And don’t try to dumb it all down when you know that I have discussed the issue at length. The discussion may be accessed here: http://unveiling-christianity......-an-error/. Your childish excuses have not resolved the error.

      You said:
      A: Perhaps God knew Canaan was going to be a ‘ratbag’ in advance.

      My reply:
      Perhaps you’re a follower of the devil? Perhaps Jesus was an alien? Perhaps Noah was a martian from Mars? Again you’re grasping at straws. Let’s look at what I actually wrote:
      “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan.These [are] the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began [to be] an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

      (Genesis 9:18-25, KJV)

      Before I proceed further I would like to state for the record that Muslims are utterly shocked and offended that the Bible portrays great messengers of God as low lives like drunkards.

      Coming to the story… Notice how the story says Ham THE FATHER of Canaan. This is rather interesting. Seems like it’s trying to prove or lead to something.

      In summary, Noah became drunk and dropped naked in his tent. Ham, Noah’s second son found him in that state and told his brothers about it. According to many Biblical experts Ham didn’t just tell his brothers about it, he also laughed at his father’s state. This is considered as an offense to Noah and is the reason why Noah made the curse. The two other sons Shem and Japheth were ashamed of their father’s nakedness and covered him without looking. When Noah gained consciousness, he knew what Ham did and started cursing,”And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

      Did you catch the joke?

      Noah had 3 sons : Shem, Ham and Japheth.

      Ham had 4 sons(Genesis 10:6) : Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.

      When the narration is analysed, a question arises,”Who was responsible for looking at Noah’s nakedness?” The answer is Ham. Christians argue that the action of Ham was a sin, hence the curse. For the sake of argument, we agree. Yet, who was responsible and thereafter cursed? Ham was responsible, but, who was made to pay? Was it Ham? No, Canaan an innocent little child was made to pay for the error of Ham. The father who’s responsible was reprieved and the son who’s innocent was punished. Further more, why was Canaan out of 4 siblings singled out? Is this justice or madness? Can you imagine something like that happening today? I love analogies, so let’s have one :

      James has four children. He committed murder. He is apprehended, brought to court and is found guilty. The judge decided that the punishment is the “injection” i.e. death. However, the injection is given to his youngest son and he in turn is released without cost. Once again, is this justice or madness? I leave the verdict to the readers.

      In addition, how is this strange tale reconciled in light of the following:

      “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)
      —end of article—

      You said:
      A: They didn’t invent the story of Jesus Christ. Like Muslims they are using it to support their story. Actually, Islam and Mormonism have some striking similarities. In both religions and ‘angel’ appeared to one individual with ‘new’ revelation. In contrast to this the history, miracles and teaching of Moses and Jesus were witnessed openly. Islam in this sense is a ‘closed’ religion. Be warned.

      My reply:
      Once again your ignorance is stupendous. Who saw Moses receiving the commandments exactly? Did anyone? NOBODY. What do you mean it was witnessed OPENLY? Are you telling me that angels cannot be God’s messenger of Revelation? Can you tell me who was it that informed Lot of Sodom and Gomorrah’s impending doom? Can you tell me who was it that Daniel spoke to in Daniel 8:17? Was it not Gabriel as mentioned in verse 16? In fact, Daniel experienced something similar that Muhammad s.a.w. did, that is, both were overwhelmed by the angelic presence. Daniel got into a trance and fell on the ground says verse 18 and Muhammad s.a.w. according to Islamic tradition in Bukhari and others felt someone gripping him hard until he couldn’t breathe. You have absolutely no point. I am telling you now that you are out of your league. You still don’t realise that?

      You said:
      A: Polycarp spoke of the cross (Polycarp 7:1, 12:3). Clement (1 Clement 7:4) also and Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1) write of ‘the blood’ of Christ, atonement concepts and the resurrection, all supporting the crucifixion scenario. These were people who knew people who knew Christ! They lived in the 1st Century! They heard the testimony from the ‘horses’ mouth! Surely their testomony is powerful.

      My reply:
      Those were people who knew people who knew Christ? According to whom? According to them? Well, Marcion claimed to have followed the true teachings of Jesus. Did he really? Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans was written in 107. That’s more than 50 years after the fact. Clement and Polycarp also came in the 2nd century(the latter became Iranaeus’ teacher in the 2nd century if indeed the tradition is authentic). As a point of fact, you do realise that the idea that Polycarp knew Papias and was himself converted by apostles are things that were solely claimed by Iranaeus right? How do we know that Iranaeus was telling the truth or even if he was that the information given to him was accurate? The gospels were already in circulation during their time which means that they were simply reiterating what they had been told by those who claimed to know those who came from Jesus, but I have already proven that the sources from which this idea is derived are themselves unknown and anonymous. The following is an excerpt from my article on Psalms 22:
      Raymond E. Brown cites John 20:25,17, Luke 24:39, the Gospel of Peter 6:21 where it says,”the nails from the hands of the Lord.”, Ignatius who says Jesus was “truly nailed”(Smyrneans 1.2), and the Commentary on the Diatessaron 20.31 (Armenian; SC 121.365) speaking of Jesus’ hands as nailed and his feet tied. After mentioning all those references he concludes, “…none of the above passages that refer to nails only in hands echoes the LXX wording or imagery of the psalm.” He goes on to say that some scholars are puzzled by the failure of the authors of the gospels “to exploit” the scriptural passage.[11] Brown also cites J. W. Hewitt who wrote, “There is astonishingly little evidence that the feet of a crucified person was ever pierced by nails.”

      You said:
      A: You’re trying to pull wool over our eyes here. It’s not his death that is being debated here. It’s his manner of death. The majority of historians believe Jesus Christ was crucified.

      My reply:
      I confirmed that many if not most scholars agree that Jesus died by crucifixion. I don’t know why you’re repeating what I had already affirmed. The purpose of the article was to criticse the sources upon which the historians utilise to base their judgment concerning Jesus’ death. The conclusion of the whole excercise was that there is little real evidence to substantiate Jesus’ supposed death on the cross. The following is what I wrote at the beginning of the article:
      Jesus’ Crucifixion is the bedrock of mainstream Christianity. It is such an important foundation in Christianity that even sects that have departed from “Orthodoxy” such as Unitarianism and the Jehovah’s Witness have retained the crucifixion. Paul says, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor. 15:14). Without crucifixion there is no resurrection. Because the preaching of Christianity is based on the resurrection it goes without saying that the crucifixion is equally significant and important which is also why the official symbol in mainstream Christianity is the cross.

      It is often claimed in Evangelical circles and by Christian missionaries that there is a consensus among scholars and historians both conservative and liberal that Jesus certainly died on the cross. This is misleading. There are scholars who argue that because there is such a paucity in early reliable historical records attesting to Jesus’ existence that must mean that he is a myth, a legend, a fiction. Granted that the circle of scholars of this persuasion is small in number that does not discount the fact that they are up and about. Tom Harpur who was professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe(The Pagan Christ), Bruno Bauer (Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin), Earl Doherty(The Jesus Puzzle), Prof. G.A. Wells(The Historical Evidence for Jesus), Prof. Michael Martin(The Case Against Christianity) are some of the scholars who have questioned Jesus’ existence. Thus to continue claiming that all scholars both liberal and conservative agree on the crucifixion is untrue. Undoubtedly, a vast majority of scholars say the crucifixion happened, but not without serious qualification. They do not say it as a fact, but rather as a probable occurence. Historians involved in this area of study base their judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data. Using the historical method scholars comb through available historical materials, assess them and thereafter produce what they think to be the most probable conclusion. Historians using the critical historical method do not recognise supernatural events because they are the least probable occurences which is why God cannot be in the equation hence discounting both resurrection and Jesus’ ascent to heaven as historical(at least according to the historical method). A person living 2000 years ago would be regarded as dead because it is highly improbable(or impossible) for a man to live for centuries. Because Jesus lived around 2000 years ago historians conclude that he must have died. This is of course according to the critical historical method. The real question that historians are interested in is how he died. And for this they look at the historical records surrounding the person Jesus. According to their perspective based on their research the most probable explanation or cause for Jesus’ death is the crucifixion. Thus many modern (non-Muslim) historians have no qualms over Jesus’ death itself not because they think that Jesus was factually and definitely crucified but because a man living 2000 years ago cannot still be alive. In this article we will be looking closely at some of those major data and sources used to propose that Jesus died by crucifixion. God willing, we will illustrate by proposing nine contentions(using historical and theological arguments) that the historical material employed are insufficient in proving the crucifixion and that Jesus certainly did not die the shameful death of a crucified man.

      How much do we know about Jesus? As we have mentioned before there is a paucity of material pertaining to him. This fact is noted in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible.

      “However desirable it might be to have available records of Jesus’ words and deeds that were made during his lifeimte, we must acknowledge that we have none.”[1] (emphasis added)

      “Reliable knowledge of Jesus, his life and teaching, is limited. The years of his adolescence and young manhood are shrouded in silence, and his active ministry of not over two or three years is treated only briefly in the Gospels. There are only four short accounts of Jesus’ ministry, and these record what people though of his as well as what he did and taught. Beyond the narrative of his teachings and actions nothing is known of his personality, physical appearance, or bearing that might account for the remarkable charismatic power which he held over his disciples and the masses who at one time followed him.” [2] (emphasis added)
      —end of quote—

      In an earlier reply to you(to which you never replied) I made mention of the fact that the Q tradition markedly leaves out the crucifixion and the resurrection. The Gospel of Thomas(first edition) dated to before Mark according to scholars of the Jesus Seminar(The Five Gospels, pp. 128) also has no mention of the crucifixion and the resurrection. Q and Paul are from the same period, but we can’t be sure which came first. This means that at the earliest stage two basic lines of opposing traditions existed, that is, one has an uncrucified and an unresurrected Jesus and the other has a crucified and resurrected Jesus. The idea that Jesus was crucified gained more influence than the former and so it is retained in Mark, but the resurrection was still very unpopular and so it is neither in Mark nor the Didache(first edition) both of which hail from 60-80 C.E. It is only after that during Matthew and Luke that both crucifixion and resurrection gained dominance. in 80 to 100 CE. That’s 50 years after Jesus’ departure which is enough time for a lot of things to be modified and invented which is a subject that we have already discussed at length elsewhere. In conclusion, you have not proven a single thing and have been refuted in everything.

  26. mrkillers says:

    “In contrast to this the history, miracles and teaching of Moses and Jesus were witnessed openly. ”

    who witnessed the son morph into a man? who witnessed jesus raise back to life LIKE the way osiris’ ressurection is described like he first got up and was at angle x , then y , then z?

    you know bull, if people thought that julius’ ceasure was divine godbecause he flew to sky like superman, then what about moses who rescued the jews from egyptians? note that he LITERALLY saved flesh and bone and if he was part of pagan culture he would be regarded as a saviour god or rEDEEMER god. man, in india a 7 year old kid does an operation and is called god incarnate. what is the problem with you people? by your pagan claims one can make moses into a god. one can make the moshiyaks in torah who do battlews as WARRIOR gods. seriously man, twisted words can turn moses into a god if we are to apply your pagan logic unto him . don’t you know that there were jewish sects which believed that a NORMAL humans blood can atone for the sins of people? did you know that some jewish heretics thought that isac was saviour of israel because his blood was shed? you will say the text does not say that in ot, but you see they thought like you, they thought spiritual execution and others thought literal exection and they twist the text of variant readings to justify their claims. your religion seems to have universalized herectical jewish ideas

  27. The Bull says:

    Ibn Anwar said: “Was it really John as first identified by Iranaeus that according to you received the information from Polycarp?”
    A: John received information from Polycarp? Polycarp was a disciple of John according to Irenaeus.

    Ibn Anwar said: “You’re missing the point. Paul clearly identifies the Father as God and Jesus as the man between whom believers and God are bridged.”
    A: And how did he do that? Jesus is both God and Man.

    Ibn Anwar said: “Well, the action of bowing down itself by no means make the subject of the bowing divine e.g. Daniel 2:46. King Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel because of the latter’s God.”
    A: There is a distinction here. Unlike Daniel, EVERY knee shall bow to Christ. That includes angels, Muhummad and every thing that has ever existed. Why would ‘things in heaven’ (Phillipians 2:10) bow to Jesus if God is present there. This logic exposes the fallacy of your ‘speaker’ analogy. Also King Neb. should not be worshipping Daniel.

    What about Hebrews 1:8? Let’s have a look at what the Harvard scholar and theologian, Andrews Norton has to say about the verse:
    “Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being..”
    A: That is like saying the word ‘red’ does not denote red.
    The context is this: Christ is much better than angels (v4), let the Angels worship him (v6) (Imagine that scenario in heaven with God watching!) and he created the heavens and laid the foundations of the world (v10). Jesus obviously existed before he was born and he is greater than any prophet that ever lived. Also the author is quoting from Psalm 45v6 showing that it is indeed God to whom he is referring.

    What about Revelation 1:11?
    You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation. The expression does not appear in the NIV and other versions of the Bible as textual scholars have noted that it is a later interpolation.
    A: No, I’m sorry to burst your bubble.
    Rev: 22:12-13: “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (NIV).
    AND
    Verse (20) :“He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” (NIV) (Just to pre-empt you).

    Clearly then, even the ‘thinner’ minority modern translations refer to Jesus as Alpha and Omega.
    Also, Jesus said he IS the way, the truth and life. (John 14:6). Notice how he didn’t say I’ll show you the way, the truth and life.

    Ibn Anwar said: “Does that make Jesus God since God in the Old Testament is identified as such in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12? This is the typical unscriptural Trinitarian game afoot. Jesus must be God because he shares some attributes ascribed to him with those that are known to be God’s.”
    A: What if Jesus shares attributes with God that are only unique to God? It cannot be said of any prophet that he is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last. It cannot be said of any prophet that he never sinned and that he was truly good. Jesus was both Man and divine. Jesus existed before he was born into this world.

    I gave the example of Melchizedek who is basically described as eternal which is supposed to be God’s unique characteristic, yet the only response I was given by The Bull is, “nah, I don’t believe this”
    A: What if Melchizedek is Jesus before his incarnation?

    The Bible time and again identifies God as THE ONLY saviour such as in Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:21 and Hosea 13:4
    A: So, What’s your point? I already believe Jesus is God? Problem solved.

    Ibn Anwar said: ‘Were any of the other prophets sinless? Do you have a problem with your memory? We have already gone through this months ago elsewhere.’

    I have already proven that others besides Jesus in the Old Testament such as Elisha raised the dead!
    A: All I was saying is that you can’t equate CPR with a resurrection from the dead. You seemed to be downgrading the miracles of Jesus. Yes, others who were not God were able to perform a resurrection miracle. Happy.

    Ibn Anwar said: “If God can create Adam without parents then He can do the job of creating Jesus without a father.”
    A: But Jesus existed before he was born. Remember his origins are from eternity, everlasting? He is the Alpha and Omega (KJV and NIV). Before Abraham was I AM. (John 8:58). How do you explain that? He is so much better than the Angels? You are clearly not dealing with just a man here.

    Ibn Anwar said: “Who saw Moses receiving the commandments exactly? Did anyone? NOBODY. What do you mean it was witnessed OPENLY? Are you telling me that angels cannot be God’s messenger of Revelation? Can you tell me who was it that informed Lot of Sodom and Gomorrah’s impending doom? Can you tell me who was it that Daniel spoke to in Daniel 8:17? Was it not Gabriel as mentioned in verse 16? In fact, Daniel experienced something similar that Muhammad s.a.w. did, that is, both were overwhelmed by the angelic presence.”

    A: You don’t have to look very far to see that many of the miracles and wonders surrounding Moses were witnessed by many. An entire nation was brought to its knees by signs and wonders. Nobody saw Moses receiving the commandments (twice), however his face shone (Exodus 34:28) and the stone tablets were engraved by God himself (Exodus 31:18, 32:16)).An entire mountain was on fire and the nation of Israel audibly heard the voice of God (Exodus 19,20). Also, 73 other people saw God at this time (Exodus 24:9:10).

    Soddom and Gomorrah’s story is vindicated because the two cities were nuked; again a verifiable sign. So too Daniel. The king verified that his dream was correct. Then you have the loins den episode also witnessed by many. Gabriel only interpreted a dream about the future for Daniel.

    Jesus showed his wisdom and power openly by teaching and miracles.

    In contrast to this Muhammad received new (and conflicting) doctrinal information alone, from God through an angel. Paul warned about angels preaching ‘another Gospel’ (Galatians 1:8).
    A Roman Catholic clergyman was the first to announce him as a prophet?
    Moses received revelation from God directly and an entire nation witnessed it.

    Ibn Anwar said: “The gospels were already in circulation during their time which means that they were simply reiterating what they had been told by those who claimed to know those who came from Jesus.”
    A: Do you realize that you’ve just added another layer of communication here!
    You should have said they were reiterating what they had been told by those who knew Jesus. You see they not only had the gospels, but they had the eyewitnesses as well!

    A: “It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John.”
    (Wikipedia – Ignatius)

    “Starting in the 3rd and 4th century,[1] tradition has identified him as the Clement that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3 as a fellow laborer in Christ.”
    (Wikipedia – Clement).

    1Clem 47:1
    Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

    1Clem 7:4
    Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how
    precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation
    it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.

    Ibn Anwar said: “How do we know that Iranaeus was telling the truth or even if he was that the information given to him was accurate?”
    A: Have you read the testimony of Polycarps Martyrdom? Iraneaus knew Polycarp who knew John and many who had seen Jesus. Certainly these people were alive at a time when they could have known them. You can see by their writings and the fact that they died for the cross that they were more likely to be telling the truth than not.

    Ibn Anwar said: “but the resurrection was still very unpopular and so it is neither in Mark..”
    A: You are incorrect here. Read Mark 16v6.

    Ibn Anwar said: “I made mention of the fact that the Q tradition markedly leaves out the crucifixion and the resurrection.”
    A: That’s incredible, can you post the Q gospel so I can see it for myself?

    Ibn Anwar said: “Were any of the other prophets sinless? Do you have a problem with your memory? We have already gone through this months ago elsewhere. I have won that round like all the others.”
    A: Ecclesiastes 7:20: “For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.’”. See Isaiah 64:6-7 and Psalms 53:2-3. I have already shown that Job sinned and needed redemption.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “Was it really John as first identified by Iranaeus that according to you received the information from Polycarp?”
      A: John received information from Polycarp? Polycarp was a disciple of John according to Irenaeus.

      My reply:
      what the hell are you replying to exactly?

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “You’re missing the point. Paul clearly identifies the Father as God and Jesus as the man between whom believers and God are bridged.”
      A: And how did he do that? Jesus is both God and Man.

      My reply:
      No, he did that by saying that Jesus was the man who intercedes between believers and God, the Father. This is what I said in full:
      You’re missing the point. Paul clearly identifies the Father as God and Jesus as the man between whom believers and God are bridged. The distinctions are quite explicit. Just because Jesus’ name is elevated above all others does not necessitate divinity on his part. Muhammad s.a.w. is believed to be the highest name in all of creation by orthodox sunni Muslims, yet none ascribe divinity to him just because of that. What about Romans 14:11 and Philippians 2:10 in light of Isaiah 45:23?

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “Well, the action of bowing down itself by no means make the subject of the bowing divine e.g. Daniel 2:46. King Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel because of the latter’s God.”
      A: There is a distinction here. Unlike Daniel, EVERY knee shall bow to Christ. That includes angels, Muhummad and every thing that has ever existed. Why would ‘things in heaven’ (Phillipians 2:10) bow to Jesus if God is present there. This logic exposes the fallacy of your ‘speaker’ analogy. Also King Neb. should not be worshipping Daniel.

      My reply:
      What do you mean King Necuchadnezzar should not have worshipped Daniel? But he did! And his action was not rebuked by Daniel, God or anyone else. So you’re basically saying that God and Daniel were both foolish for allowing someone to commit blasphemy without reproach. You just can’t accept the fact that proskoneo is applicable to both humans and the Divine. This is due to your ignorance of Biblical language and content.

      You said:
      There is a distinction here. Unlike Daniel, EVERY knee shall bow to Christ. That includes angels, Muhummad and every thing that has ever existed. Why would ‘things in heaven’ (Phillipians 2:10) bow to Jesus if God is present there. This logic exposes the fallacy of your ‘speaker’ analogy

      My reply:
      Idiots speak idiot language. I have already explained this and yet you fail to comprehend. As usual, let’s reproduce what I said:
      I have already explained the concept of Shaliach(agency) to you. I’ll explain it one more time. Say you have speakers on your computer and I am your King. You start hearing my voice and you tremble in awe and fall down in obeisance. Are you falling down to the speakers or the voice? In reality you are bowing down to me even though I may not be exactly in front of you to receive your bow. The speakers signify Jesus through which God speaks and so the worshipping/proskoneo of Jesus is actually in reality directed to the One who sent him. Remember 1 Timothy 6:16 which clearly says that God dwells in an unapproachable light which means that you can’t actually approach and worship Him. Jesus then will be like a symbol for God i.e. His agent. Recall my analogy of an ambassador and his state of origin wherein the President whom he represents resides in.
      –end of quote–
      In addition, in the Qur’an we have the story of Adam being worshipped by all the denizens of heaven including angels. No Muslim has ever taken that as a sign of Adam’s divinity. Rather that worship was out of respect and not a show of religious devotion. So what if every knee will boy down to Jesus’ name according to Paul’s view? I don’t necessarily believe that, but I do believe that every knee will bow down before Muhammad’s name. That however does not mean I have promoted him to divinity. I have already stated that specific religious devotion and worship(letreuo) is given to the Father and never to Jesus. Since you have quoted from Strong’s concordance why don’t you look up the definition for “proskuneo”. The definition it gives is that of a dog licking the hand of its master. This is the sense behind the word in question.

      You said:
      What about Hebrews 1:8? Let’s have a look at what the Harvard scholar and theologian, Andrews Norton has to say about the verse:
      “Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being..”
      A: That is like saying the word ‘red’ does not denote red.
      The context is this: Christ is much better than angels (v4), let the Angels worship him (v6)What about Hebrews 1:8? Let’s have a look at what the Harvard scholar and theologian, Andrews Norton has to say about the verse:
      “Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being..”
      A: That is like saying the word ‘red’ does not denote red.
      The context is this: Christ is much better than angels (v4), let the Angels worship him (v6) (Imagine that scenario in heaven with God watching!)and he created the heavens and laid the foundations of the world (v10). Jesus obviously existed before he was born and he is greater than any prophet that ever lived. Also the author is quoting from Psalm 45v6 showing that it is indeed God to whom he is referring.

      My reply:
      You’re telling me that a Harvard theologian does not know the meaning of the word ‘red’? I think it would be safe to conclude that it is you who don’t know what you’re talking about. Muslims believe that every righteous human being is better than the angels. Of course I don’t expect you to know this since you don’t even know your own book that well. The Muslim belief is relevant here to show that just because a man is above an angel or a host of angels that by no means makes the former divine. If God has ordained a particular individual or a group of individuals to be above angels let it be so. You said, “(Imagine that scenario in heaven with God watching!)”. Yes, we can easily imagine that scenario as it is found in the Qur’an where the angels bowed to Adam in God’s non-geographical presence. Does red mean red? Well, first of all, red is an adjective and God is usually used as a noun, though the word theos in certain cases can be used as an adjective. So the two are not really alike. The comparison clearly fails. But you see, the word theos in Greek according to Thayer’s lexicon has got at least four definitions. The fourth definition is the one that Andrews Norton refers to which is also found used for Moses in Exdous 7:1, the judges in 82nd Psalms(quoted by jesus in John 10), Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4 etc. So in reality it is you who do not know what you’re talking about you foolish imp.

      You said:
      he created the heavens and laid the foundations of the world (v10). Jesus obviously existed before he was born and he is greater than any prophet that ever lived. Also the author is quoting from Psalm 45v6 showing that it is indeed God to whom he is referring.

      My reply:
      Several theologians argue that verse 10 actually refers to God, the Fathe rand not Jesus. The verse reads, “και συ κατ αρχας κυριε την γην εθεμελιωσας και εργα των χειρων σου εισιν οι ουρανοι.” It begins with the conjunction “kai”(and), hence it is actually joined with verse 9. In verse 9 it is clearly referring to the Father, “our God has set you (the Christ) above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” Scholars then contend that the word “κύριε”(Lord) in verse 10 goes back to the subject in the immediate context which is the One who set Jesus above his companions, that is, God, the Father. Andrews Norton says:
      “Now the God last mentioned was Christ’s God, who had anointed him; and the author [of the book of Hebrews], addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon in order to prove the stability of the Son’s kingdom…i.e., thou [God] who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth. So it seems to be a declaration of God’s immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ’s kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102nd Psalm, viz. [Author uses KJV] To infer thence this conclusion, “The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before Thee. In like manner, it here proves the Son’s throne should be established forever and ever, by the same argument, viz., by God’s immutability.” (Ibid. pp. 214)

      You said:
      What about Revelation 1:11?
      You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation. The expression does not appear in the NIV and other versions of the Bible as textual scholars have noted that it is a later interpolation.
      A: No, I’m sorry to burst your bubble.
      Rev: 22:12-13: “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (NIV).
      AND
      Verse (20) :“He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” (NIV) (Just to pre-empt you).

      Clearly then, even the ‘thinner’ minority modern translations refer to Jesus as Alpha and Omega.
      Also, Jesus said he IS the way, the truth and life. (John 14:6). Notice how he didn’t say I’ll show you the way, the truth and life.

      My reply:
      hahahaha You actually burst your own bubble and you don’t even realise it. I said, “You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation.” Notice the words “AT THIS POINT IN REVELATION”. Oh, I certainly know that elsehwere LATER in Revelations we find the expression a few times. You think I don’t know that you bloody nitwit? I told you I have read the Bible in several languages probably more times than you ever will in your whole life. You made the mistake and you know you did in appealing to a particular reference that you thought has Jesus described as Alpha and Omega. But as I have shown that particular verse that you appealed to is clearly an interpolation and there is no Alpha and Omega there specifically. You made the mistake. own up to it instead of embarrassing yourself further. Yes, Jesus was the way in his own dispensation! lol Elsewhere he is made to say that, “I am the door…anyone who enters will be saved” That means he is not the ultimate destination, but rather paves the way to the actual destination. If you wanted candy from a store you don’t stop at the door and say, “YAY, I have can get candy now!”. Rather, you have to go through the door and it is inside that you will find the candy. Jesus isn’t the candy that you’re looking for. He’s the door leading to the candy. Can you get that? It’s really very simple.

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “Does that make Jesus God since God in the Old Testament is identified as such in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12? This is the typical unscriptural Trinitarian game afoot. Jesus must be God because he shares some attributes ascribed to him with those that are known to be God’s.”
      A: What if Jesus shares attributes with God that are only unique to God? It cannot be said of any prophet that he is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last. It cannot be said of any prophet that he never sinned and that he was truly good. Jesus was both Man and divine. Jesus existed before he was born into this world.

      My reply:
      What if? I have already proven that your method of deifying Jesus is not just insufficient, but also nonsensical according to the scriptures you appeal to. Here’s my whole response that you did not refute at all:
      “What about the expression, “the first and the last”? Does that make Jesus God since God in the Old Testament is identified as such in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12? This is the typical unscriptural Trinitarian game afoot. Jesus must be God because he shares some attributes ascribed to him with those that are known to be God’s. In another response I have already shown that such a method is fallacious if you you’re a Bible believing Christian. I gave the example of Melchizedek who is basically described as eternal which is supposed to be God’s unique characteristic, yet the only response I was given by The Bull is, “nah, I don’t believe this”. This is the level of education we are witnessing here. The Bible time and again identifies God as THE ONLY saviour such as in Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:21 and Hosea 13:4. The typical Trinitarian will then find you verses where Jesus is called saviour e.g. Acts 13:23 and lo and behold God and Jesus are one. But what they fail to tell you is that others beside God and Jesus are called the same such as those in 2 Kings 13:5, Nehemiah 9:27, and Obadiah 1:21. Following the Trinitarian’s logic those too ought to be made Gods and deserve to be religiously worshiped. We see then just because Jesus is described in a way that may resemble God, that does not neseccitate divinity on his part. In any case, Revelation is a collection of dreams that is not based on actual historical incidences and it went through much difficulty before being widely accepted as canonical and even then theologians like Martin Luther wanted to expunge it from the canon.”

      You said:
      I gave the example of Melchizedek who is basically described as eternal which is supposed to be God’s unique characteristic, yet the only response I was given by The Bull is, “nah, I don’t believe this”
      A: What if Melchizedek is Jesus before his incarnation?

      My reply:
      What if? what if the Bull is an idiotic nitwit who looks like a bloody Bull…as ugly as hell? What if? The attributes given to Melchizedek are clearly in opposition to those given to Jesus. In fact, Melchizedek is described as WITHOUT BEGINNING of days or END of life. According to you Jesus is the beginning and the end. Melchizedek is described as “LIKE THE SON OF GOD”, but isn’t Jesus the “son of God”? How can Melchizedek be the Son of God and at the same time LIKE the son of God? Can you not see the stupidity of your ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’?

      You said:
      “Ibn Anwar said: “Who saw Moses receiving the commandments exactly? Did anyone? NOBODY. What do you mean it was witnessed OPENLY? Are you telling me that angels cannot be God’s messenger of Revelation? Can you tell me who was it that informed Lot of Sodom and Gomorrah’s impending doom? Can you tell me who was it that Daniel spoke to in Daniel 8:17? Was it not Gabriel as mentioned in verse 16? In fact, Daniel experienced something similar that Muhammad s.a.w. did, that is, both were overwhelmed by the angelic presence.”

      A: You don’t have to look very far to see that many of the miracles and wonders surrounding Moses were witnessed by many. An entire nation was brought to its knees by signs and wonders. Nobody saw Moses receiving the commandments (twice), however his face shone (Exodus 34:28) and the stone tablets were engraved by God himself (Exodus 31:18, 32:16)).An entire mountain was on fire and the nation of Israel audibly heard the voice of God (Exodus 19,20). Also, 73 other people saw God at this time (Exodus 24:9:10).”

      My reply:
      The revelation that Moses received at the beginning was witnessed by no one, just like the first revelation that was given to the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. The similarities between the two are striking. Both received important commandments in a cave that were not witnessed by any other(recall Deuteronomy 18:18). But the miracles of Muhammad s.a.w. were witnessed openly, just as the miracles of Moses and Jesus were. In fact, in Bukhari we have the narration that his entire congregation heard the wailing and moaning of a tree because the Prophet moved his location of sermon giving elsehwhere. It was only upon reassuring the tree that it began to calm down and was silent again. This was witnessed by hundreds during the Jum’ah service. This is only one sample out of numerous others. In fact, the standing miracle of the Prophet s.a.w. that is even today witnessed by all is the Qur’an. Why talk about miracles in the past that are today unverifiable? We find mention of Hindus doing miracles in India witnessed by their followers and things of the sort. Do we give any weight to those even though it is claimed that they really did happen and witnessed by so many? Jesus said that even false prophets can perform miracles. Hence according to your own criterion which is the Bible miracles prove nothing. The Qur’an is so miraculous that even non-Muslim experts like A.J. Arberry(a Christian expert on Arabic) in his introduction to his translation of the Qur’an says that he has no problem accepting that the language of the Qur’an is of supernatural origin.

      You said:
      In contrast to this Muhammad received new (and conflicting) doctrinal information alone, from God through an angel. Paul warned about angels preaching ‘another Gospel’ (Galatians 1:8).
      A Roman Catholic clergyman was the first to announce him as a prophet?
      Moses received revelation from God directly and an entire nation witnessed it.

      My reply:
      OMG. You have truly reached the acme of idiocy! A roman Catholic clergyman? Waraqa Bin naufal was not a Catholic you dumb idiot. Nowhere does it identify which sect or denomination of Christianity he belonged to. If you make any more of such tremendously foolish statements you will be permanently exiled from this forum. Do you understand? You said that Muhammad received new doctrinal information. What the heck are you talking about? Jewish Rabbis themselves affirm affinity with the Islamic doctrinal teachings such as a clear affirmation for God’s absolute Oneness. In fact, Maimonides said that Jews can worship in mosques, but not in Churches. Why do think that is? It’s because our doctrines correlate in most of the important theological issues. It is Pauline Christianity that conflicts with the teachings of the OT and even the teachings of Jesus. This is affirmed by Christian experts themselves. http://unveiling-christianity......f-tarsus2/. It was Paul who made resurrection the bedrock of faith. Prior to him none of Jesus’ followers said that if you don’t believe in the resurrection then your preaching is in vain. Yet, prior to the resurrection were there no real believers? Mark 2 talks about people with real faith that allowed them to be forgiven. Did they believe in the resurrection? the answer is NO, yet were they in vain? How could that be when it was their faith(without belief in resurrection) that gave the paralytic forgiveness of all sins. The conflict is between Pauline Christianity and numerous teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament.

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “The gospels were already in circulation during their time which means that they were simply reiterating what they had been told by those who claimed to know those who came from Jesus.”
      A: Do you realize that you’ve just added another layer of communication here!
      You should have said they were reiterating what they had been told by those who knew Jesus. You see they not only had the gospels, but they had the eyewitnesses as well!

      My reply:
      hahaha The Bull****, you have absolutely no proof that there were only three layers of communication involved. we have no way of telling who gave who what and when. What eyewitnesses? Those people may have claimed to know eyewitnesses, but there is no way to verify their claim and those claims supposedly made by them are told to you by those who claim to know them and there is no way to verify this either!

      You said:
      A: “It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John.”
      (Wikipedia – Ignatius)

      “Starting in the 3rd and 4th century,[1] tradition has identified him as the Clement that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3 as a fellow laborer in Christ.”
      (Wikipedia – Clement).

      1Clem 47:1
      Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

      1Clem 7:4
      Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how
      precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation
      it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.

      My reply:
      It is really sad that you think citing wikipedia proves your case. Do you realise that wikipedia is an unacceptable source in academia? But, let’s see what the text says, ““It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John.”. The key word there is “believed”. There are just no hard facts to prove the alleged connection.

      You said:
      “Starting in the 3rd and 4th century,[1] tradition has identified him as the Clement that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3 as a fellow laborer in Christ.”
      (Wikipedia – Clement).

      My reply:
      Starting in the 3rd and 4th century. That’s roughly 250 or more after the fact! What is the basis for this tradition? What are the proofs that we can discern to truly say that it is valid? None.

      You said:
      “A: Have you read the testimony of Polycarps Martyrdom? Iraneaus knew Polycarp who knew John and many who had seen Jesus. Certainly these people were alive at a time when they could have known them. You can see by their writings and the fact that they died for the cross that they were more likely to be telling the truth than not.”

      My reply:
      Yes, I have read that writing and you have not. The author of the writing itself is anonymous, but Eusebius claimed that he received it in a letter that was addressed to Philomelium by the Church of Smyrna. You do realise that Eusebius hails from more than 200 years after Jesus right? Scholars have noted that the work contains several interpolations and a good number of scholars date it to later than the mid of the 2nd century. It is no proof for you at all. You said, “Iraneaus knew Polycarp who knew John and many who had seen Jesus.” You’re quite slow in not realising that we are testing this chain of transmission. So far you haven’t proven that one is indeed connected to the other. You have no proof to verify the allegations of tradition.

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “but the resurrection was still very unpopular and so it is neither in Mark..”
      A: You are incorrect here. Read Mark 16v6.

      My reply:
      Mark 16:6 says that Jesus was crucified and has been raised. Does that mean resurrection? No, it does not have to mean resurrection. The New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary says that it assumes “that God raised up Jesus”. You will only think that this means resurrection if you refer to later Gospels such as Matthew and Luke which was my point exactly. At the time Mark was completed the Christian concept of Jesus’ bodily resurrection was not yet in vogue. The idea of Jesus’ rising then in Mark 16:6 may very well be in reference to elevation in status or taking Jesus up to the heavens as is the Muslim position.

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “I made mention of the fact that the Q tradition markedly leaves out the crucifixion and the resurrection.”
      A: That’s incredible, can you post the Q gospel so I can see it for myself?

      My reply:
      This is what I wrote in the article:
      “You might be saying that I’ve gone bonkers for claiming that the earliest Gospel has no passion narrative. You might think I’m talking about Mark which is considered by scholars to be the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written. No, I am not talking about Mark. Rather, I am talking about a Gospel that predates even the Gospel of Mark. I’m talking about the lost Gospel “Q”. To understand what the Gospel Q is one needs to understand some background concerning the first three Gospels. The first three Gospels are labelled as Synoptics which means “seen together” the reason of which is due to the fact that the passages and pericopes in the three bear numerous stark similarities. Biblical scholars considered this as the “Synoptic Problem”. The conclusion that they arrived at was that both Matthew and Luke relied heavily on a common source namely, the Gospel according to Mark. However, Mark cannot account for a considerable number of verses that are found in Matthew and Luke. These are verses that Matthew and Luke share in common, but are missing in Mark. To solve this issue German Biblical scholars postulated another source that Matthew and Luke relied upon which they have simply dubbed “Q” which is short for the German word Quelle meaning source. Though there are scholars who contest the existence of “Q”, the majority accept it as the most tenable explanation for the parallels found between Matthew and Luke that are not accounted for in Mark. Most scholars have dated the “Q” Gospel to approximately 50 CE predating the Canonical Gospels.[24]

      By comparing Matthew and Luke closely the scholars have reconstructed this “Q” Gospel. What does it contain? A lot of things, but most importantly is that it has no passion or resurrection narrative at all. One of the foremost scholars on the “Q” Gospel notes, “…the Sayings Gospel has no passion narrative or resurrection stories…”[25]. Bart D. Ehrman also notes, “Most striking was the circumstance that in none of the Q materials (that is, in none of the passages found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark) is there an account of Jesus’ death and resurrection.” [26]
      Gospel “Q” came about around the same time Paul was writing his letters and teaching the theology of the crucifixion and resurrection as essential to the Christian faith. If the crucifixion truly happened and indeed necessary for salvation and that Jesus definitely raised from the dead why is it not mentioned in this gospel that was made used by Matthew and Luke? We contend that the reason why it does not contain either passion or resurrection narrative is because neither really took place and are indeed unessential to the faith that Jesus brought.
      —end of quote—

      If you wish to see the Q document then you might want to purchase L. Michael White’s ‘Scripting Jesus’ or any other Introduction to the New Testament that provides the material. But you can do it yourself if you have the patience and intelligence. Simply compare Matthew and Luke against Mark. Mark the similarities between Matthew/Luke and Mark and the similarities between Matthew and Luke. Those similarities or exactness between Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark are what scholars describe as Q. Do you understand now?

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “Were any of the other prophets sinless? Do you have a problem with your memory? We have already gone through this months ago elsewhere. I have won that round like all the others.”
      A: Ecclesiastes 7:20: “For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.’”. See Isaiah 64:6-7 and Psalms 53:2-3. I have already shown that Job sinned and needed redemption.

      My reply:
      It is in the same book that it says, “This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.”(Ecclesiastes 7:29) So God made every person upright, but it is later in life that many seek out wrongdoing hence inviting imperfection. I have already explained the whole issue to you elsewhere and I understand that because of your slowness it is difficult to retain information. Let’s reproduce some of my refutations to you on this very issue that was discussed under “Dr. anis Shorrosh Christian Evangelist Put to Shame”. These were responses that you failed to rebut time and again and finally you admitting defeat by your silence:
      It is Paul who believes that everyone has fallen short of God’s glory. He goes on to say in the same book that “none is righteous, not even one.” Some years later an author wrote the gospel according to Luke and he refutes Paul’s claim inadvertently when he writes about Zechariah and Elizabeth, “Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.” (Luke 1:6) The key word is blamelessly which is translated from amemptoi which is derived from memphomai meaning “above reproach because morally pure”. You said “A loving God extends hope to all people”…A loving God extends hope to all people and if he ever had a son I think that love and hope would reach the son too unless He’s very loving to all except His own son. What kind of a God is that? You claim that the “old sin nature is done away with at the cross so we can live right before God.” But Christian theology teaches that even after grace Christians are not sinless. They are as prone to sin as any other. So called born again Christians are not angels. In many cases they have been shown to be the worse of the lot e.g. Jimmy Swaggart, Kent Hovind etc.

      ——
      You said:
      You said : ‘It is Paul who believes that everyone has fallen short of God’s glory. He goes on to say in the same book that “none is righteous, not even one.””
      Have you fallen short of Gods glory? If not, you are on par with God and you god is not very great! Both the psalmist and Isaiah declare that there is no one who does good (Psalm 14:3, 53:3) and that all our righteousness is as filth rags (Isaiah 64:6) and we are all unclean.

      Haha why do you feel the need to impose your false theology on me? We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory which necessarily implies that there was a time before the fall where a human being was on par with God’s glory! You see..like all other Christians every time you open your mouth or type something to advocate your false beliefs you refute yourself. It is quite amazing, isn’t it? What we believe about God is exactly what this verse says:
      “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
      Do you truly believe that literally NO ONE DOES GOOD???? You must be a lunatic if you believe that. You know this sort of literalist mentality is what makes you and others like you a laughing stock. You refute your own book! You have already admitted that Job, Zecharias and Elizabeth at least according to scripture did good which afforded them God’s pleasure. If those verses you have cited is to be taken literally and for all of humanity throughout human history then they are meaningless and downright stupid. To claim that no one has done good is to say that the world is full of evil 100% which is as untrue as the Easter bunny. Well, maybe you believe in the Easter bunny? The thing is many Christians have defective comprehension of language. They are not familiar with the complexity of language. They think that if a verse says “all” it must and always mean all, every..from A to Z. 1 John 2:20 says: “You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.” Do you really know all things? If you do tell me the exact nature of God? Or better yet, tell me who I really am and where I live? If you can’t then based on your method of interpretation the Bible is FALSE! 2 Samuel 17:14 says that all the men of Israel were present when Absalom was holding a council against his father, but reading the whole story one comes to know that NOT all of the men of Israel were actually present. The same goes with jeremiah 26:8. The fact is we know that there have been righteous people throughout history and God is pleased with them for the good that they did.

      Yes, Job is described as perfect a few times by God Himself and as sinless in the same chapter. So before chapter 14 verse 16 he was perfect before God’s eyes and sinless. That means it is not impossible for a person to be perfect of sinless. How can a man be righteous before God? How is asking that question equates to saying it’s impossible???? lol..you are funny. It is quite clear that Job was a humble servant and as such he did not go around parading his righteousness which would have not made him righteous if he did. It is because he was righteous that he asks the question “how can a man be righteous before God? I would advice you not to hijack and lie on your own scriptures. The reason Zechariah and Elizabeth were declared righteous before God and perfect is NOT because of the verse in Isaiah 61:10. It was because they obeyed the laws and commandments of God perfectly(ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι). They were merely adhering to Ecclesiastes 12:13, “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man.”

      —–

      You said: ‘We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory’
      A: If you don’t fall short of Gods glory then you can look God in the eye as an equal, and say look at me, there is nothing wrong with me, I am glorious, holy, mighty and perfect. In effect you are saying you are just as glorious as God! I think you have said an indefensible statement!
      You said: ‘There is not a single shred of evidence that they actually died believing in the death and crucifixion of Jesus as you do.’
      A: There is the bible isn’t there and don’t forget the resurrection! Didn’t they ‘turn the world upside down’. History has spoken.

      Hahahaha you have totally ignored my refutation and start preaching instead. Let’s see what I said one more time:
      Haha why do you feel the need to impose your false theology on me? We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory which necessarily implies that there was a time before the fall where a human being was on par with God’s glory! You see..like all other Christians every time you open your mouth or type something to advocate your false beliefs you refute yourself. It is quite amazing, isn’t it? What we believe about God is exactly what this verse says:
      “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
      Do you truly believe that literally NO ONE DOES GOOD???? You must be a lunatic if you believe that. You know this sort of literalist mentality is what makes you and others like you a laughing stock. You refute your own book! You have already admitted that Job, Zecharias and Elizabeth at least according to scripture did good which afforded them God’s pleasure. If those verses you have cited is to be taken literally and for all of humanity throughout human history then they are meaningless and downright stupid. To claim that no one has done good is to say that the world is full of evil 100% which is as untrue as the Easter bunny. Well, maybe you believe in the Easter bunny? The thing is many Christians have defective comprehension of language. They are not familiar with the complexity of language. They think that if a verse says “all” it must and always mean all, every..from A to Z. 1 John 2:20 says: “You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.” Do you really know all things? If you do tell me the exact nature of God? Or better yet, tell me who I really am and where I live? If you can’t then based on your method of interpretation the Bible is FALSE! 2 Samuel 17:14 says that all the men of Israel were present when Absalom was holding a council against his father, but reading the whole story one comes to know that NOT all of the men of Israel were actually present. The same goes with jeremiah 26:8. The fact is we know that there have been righteous people throughout history and God is pleased with them for the good that they did.

      Apparently, you don’t understand the necessary implication behind the word ‘fall’. Before there can be a ‘fall’ there must be rising or standing or sitting. If men fell short of God’s glory then there was a point of time when men stood on part with His glory BEFORE the fall! lol

      ——-

      You said:
      A: That’s right. Adam and Eve were not short of Gods glory before the fall. They were made in his image and walked with God face to face. They were faultless and holy until the serpent came and beguiled them.

      My answer:
      This image must have been that of a glorified ape unfamiliar with the concept of right and wrong. This is the Genesis story is it not? Adam and Even only realised they were naked once they ate from the tree of knowledge. Prior to that they had no sense of good and evil. You claim that this is the glorified state from whence they came akin to that of God’s glorified position. The implication of this similitude is that God was a simpleton like Adam and Eve. Why do you enjoy digging a deeper grave than what you already have? Can Adam and Eve or any man stand in front of God and claim that he is glorified like God? It was you who adamantly denied this in no uncertain terms as you said, “A: If you don’t fall short of Gods glory then you can look God in the eye as an equal, and say look at me, there is nothing wrong with me, I am glorious, holy, mighty and perfect. In effect you are saying you are just as glorious as God! I think you have said an indefensible statement!” No human being, not even the first ones can hold a candle to God and say, “I am with glory just like you.” God is unlike anything as 2 Samuel 7:22 says,“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You”. You have kicked the bucket because you realised that my argument about the state of being prior to the fall is irrefutable so you had to concede but to save face you try to allege that they were just as glorified as god before the fall and by doing so you have unbeknownst devalued your god to that of an ignoramus like the first human beings.

      You said:
      “A: It must mean to know ‘all things’ in a spiritual context. Obviously they will not know how many atoms the planet Jupiter is composed of. One needs to be contextual,”

      My answer:
      What spiritual context? It is quite clear that you are restricting the word ‘all’ rather than apply it to absolutely everything and anything like you were falsely doing with some passages regarding doing good. Scripturally I have proven that men can do good and are described as such for their righteous deeds. You don’t have a leg to stand upon.
      —end of discussion on sin and sinlessness—

      repeat yourself at your own peril The Bull.

      • The Bull says:

        Hi Ibn. Notice how there is a comma after the word contextual in my last reply on this issue. I posted the rest of the reply but for some reason it was not posted. Here is the rest of the statement:

        You said: ‘They think that if a verse says “all” it must and always mean all, every..from A to Z.’
        A: It must mean to know ‘all things’ in a spiritual context. Obviously they will not know how many atoms the planet Jupiter is composed of. One needs to be contextual, objective and reasonable when interpreting scripture (commonsense). You seem to have applied a dogmatic logic with the words ‘good’ and ‘blameless’. No one is good yet people are deemed good and blameless by faith and their resultant ‘good’ actions should testify to this as seen with Job, Zech. and Elizabeth. It does not mean they have never sinned impossibility) and do not need redemption. Apart from God no man can do good. The words of Jesus are that you can do NOTHING unless you abide in him (John 15:5).

      • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

        INTELLECTUALLY, QUR’AN 4:157 IMPLIES JESUS WAS INDEED CRUCIFIED
        You will realize that Jesus was indeed crucified if you intelligently take a cross examination of the Qur’an 4:157 you quoted:
        Qur’an 4:157 “And their saying: “We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God.” They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. ”

        What the Qur’an 4:157-158 says is that the Crucifixion actually took place; but Jesus was not actually the one crucified, Allah just made the crucifixion of Jesus to appear to have taken place whereas He (Allah) Has taken Jesus up unto Himself (impliedly in secrecy).
        The implication of this is that those who believed that Jesus was crucified were victims of Allah’s deceit. And over 600 years after the crucifixion Allah revealed to the World through Prophet Muhammad that he misled the crucifiers to think they had crucified Jesus. Don’t you think the Qur’an should be edited once again?! This verse is obviously an apostasy!! A’uzubillah!!

        If Allah has divinely deceived the crucifiers and the rest by making the crucifixion to have seemingly taken place whereas He (Allah) had actually taken Jesus up, then who complicated matter? Is it the fooled crucifiers or the fooling Allah?

        Note also that, had Jesus on the cross being a divine hypnosis etc, the intelligent God would surely have afterwards taken up the ‘real Jesus’ publically in order:
        i. Not to mislead the other innocent people into wrong belief
        ii. To prove to the World that the crucifixion was indeed a make-belief and
        iii. Substantiate the ascension miracle (For instance, according to the Holy Bible, the disciples of Jesus witnessed his ascension to Heaven).

        It, therefore, logically appears the crucifixion of Christ was so glaring that the only way to deny it was to claim that it was a divine deceit! But we intellectually know that it couldn’t be a divine deceit. So, intellectually, Jesus was crucified based on cross examination of the Qur’anic verse of denial of the crucifixion!
        (This is to correct the mispellings in the previous post. Delete or ignore the two posts above)

  28. mrkillers says:

    one thing the christians don’t tell us is why their saviour god did not make appearance to hundreds and thousands of people after his ressurection?
    why his execution public but not his ressurection public?
    why was he like a ghost walking through walls and appearing in lights?
    why wasn’t he even recognised? was mistaken identity a common problem back then?
    why didn’t the romans or the jews search for this blasphemer who claims to be a god ? this same blasphemer who is once again leading his movement which is becoming more and more PAGAN? don’t you think that if making a public appearance would prevent the jews from telling the people that what the mary saw was satan in disguise who came to mock torah and throw it out the window? or the belzebub tried to deceive again and according to torah such a belzebub/false prophet must be put to death in heart and in spirit.

    how about the virgin birth , bull? tell me something, how would joseph defend his wife from charge of adultery? how would dreams confirm to the accusers that mary was a virgin? did all israel have a dream that mary was a virgin and was impregnated by ghost? when joseph took jesus to the shops in israel, did the jews say, “you have a nice boy”
    but the boy wasn’t joseph’s and you think joseph telling them that the holy spirit impreganted mary would not increase more doubt? bull, we know that torah mentioned nothing about the virgin birth, so jews who knew their texts would tell jospeph ” sorry mate, the girl was already pregnate in isaiah and was about to give birth, no virgin girl in isaiah”

    so bull, were joseph and mary lying to the people about who the child belongs to?

    don’t you think the baby speaking in the qur’aan would have refuted the doubters so we don’t need the gibberish in the infancy narratives in the nt?

    think about it.

  29. Imad says:

    Of course Mr Bull completely ignored the uncomfortable points I raised up. There is very flimsy evidence that Polycarp was a disciple of John for the reasons I gave above. Quoting from Wiki to prove something really shows the desperate measures apologists can resort to. In fact there is much reason for believing the exact opposite – that Polycarp did NOT know John. If he didn’t know John then the last straw that apologists clutch at to prove an eyewitness case for the gospel stories goes right down the drain. Hence we have no eyewitness accounts for the events described in the gospels.

  30. mrkillers says:

    “Paul warned about angels preaching ‘another Gospel’ (Galatians 1:8)”

    and the jews warned agaisnt pauls bull s hit thats why he legs it to another country to sell his crucified krist idea. it is pathetic that you are using the problems which were occuring in times of paul i.e kristians abandoning his krist for ANOTHER krist, his interpretation for another interpretation. kristians not wanting to eat at the same table as the gentiles when the jews are on the scene. it is SAD that you are using the problems which paul FACED in his blasted church and APPLY it to the angel which spoke to muhammad.why don’t you just admit that in jerusalem and outside of it paul was getting his ass handed to him? he was badly losing debates and was unable to convince the jew s and the other jews . people were reading scripture and were UNABLE TO find a dead and ressurected god in them. DON’T apply the DIVISIONS in early christianity unto muhammad. you really think the fraudster of the authours of acts does not try to reconcile paul with its (acts) understanding of kristianity? trying to make paul and deciples all in agreement? you tell me something you kristian, how come within 20 years kristians paul was addressing deny the ressurection?

  31. Abu Ismail Jaafar says:

    Bull: In contrast to this Muhammad received new (and conflicting) doctrinal information alone, from God through an angel. Paul warned about angels preaching ‘another Gospel’ (Galatians 1:8).

    My reply:

    If you are implying that a fake angel of light (Satan) delivered the message of Divine Unity to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhi wa salam, then you are dead wrong, and we Muslims could make a better case of proving your religion demonic, Satanic, idolatrous, and paganistic, even using that which you accept as scripture. Paul should have warned himself, since HIS gospel contradicts Jesus, even if we assume that he, alayhi as salam, was quoted correctly by the anonymous Gospel writers, and the OT:

    As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a LIGHT from heaven flashed around him. (Acts 9:4)

    And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of LIGHT (perhaps this is where the light he supposedly saw on the way to Damascus originated). (2 Corinthians 11:14)

    SATAN rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1)

    Again the anger of the LORD (isn’t this supposed to be Satan in 1 Chronicles?) burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1)

    Matthew 23:29-33

    29 “Woe to you, SCRIBES and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

    From John 8: You (Jewish scribes who copied the OT and the Pharisees) are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

    Jeremiah 8:8: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law (Torah) of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the LYING pen of the SCRIBES Has made it into a LIE.

    (emphasis on quotes from the bible mine)

    What were the scribes’ job? “From then on, the Jewish scribes solidified the following process for creating copies of the Torah and eventually other books in the Old Testament.” (http://www.scottmanning.com/ar.....tament.php)

    So the scribes, who copied and transmitted the Bible, were snakes, brood of vipers, i.e., children of SATAN, according to the Bible itself. It appears that Paul and the other authors/interpolators of the Bible may have received inspiration from someone who masquerades as an angel of light. Even the anonymous author of 1 Chronicles apparently mistook Satan for YHWH.

    It gets worse:

    “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”
    Paul is here referring to Jesus.

    From Numbers Chapter 21: Moses accordingly made a bronze SERPENT and mounted it on a pole, and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze serpent, he recovered.

    Genesis 3:4 “You will not certainly die,” the SERPENT said to the woman.

    Just like the SERPENT which lurked around the wood/tree of life, and the SERPENT mounted on a pole/wood, Jesus, alayhi as salam, was supposedly mounted/hung on the cross/wood/tree, and became “cursed”.

    Well, who is that Muslims call “cursed”?

    “Audhu billah himinas SHAYTANI RAJIM” , I seek refuge with Allah from SATAN, the ACCURSED.

    • Abu Ismail Jaafar says:

      Acts 23:6:(Paul said) “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee….”

      Matthew 23:29-33

      29 “Woe to you, SCRIBES and PHARISEES, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

  32. mrk says:

    when paul say he was a pharissee , why believe him? the guy seems to have more knowledge of greek ot then hebrew torah. paul is a snake . just like the snakes today who claim to be staunch muslims and then a light of a dead god hanging off a cross appears to them . we don’t know anything abouts pauls language skills in hebrew / aramaic. the scums mission was to prove that judaism and its laws are evil even though we know the same laws would not allow him to persecute kristians , but paul don’t want to tell you that, he wants to trash the laws and make claims that he HEARD about visions and then he himself experienced vision.
    even in his letters he gotta says ‘before god i am NOT LYING’ WHY ? because stories were going around that this perverter was a liar obviously. he got along fine with pet and others? thats what acts wants you to believe, but guess what, we don’t have pete’s own words or james.

  33. mrk says:

    the dhalim is at it again. first of all note that qur’aan says , ‘their saying…’

    guess what they also SAID SOMETHING which according to qur’aan was BUHTANAN 3DHEMMA

    slander against mary. when qur’aan says ‘their saying…’ what makes paulines think that qur’aan believes the trial scene is true or that a trial scene even took place or that thier was a public execution? if there was a public execution why is it in actspeter says that only christians are witnesses to the crucifixion and the paulus guy NEVER once makes mention of a pilate/public execution ? he had ENOUGH opporunities to do do especially when he talks about how those in power are their because of god and do no wrong, but pilate according to the FRAUD in the gospels WAS MANIPULATED, SO paul had an opportunity to mention about how pilate was manipulated by pauls enemies the jews who killed the prophets and his flesh saviour. peter says, ‘you jews kill jezuz’ but jews claim, ‘wtf are you talking about, you’re claims are that of AN ILLITERATE commoner’ NOw how is it possible that the jewish JUDGES forgot about their gatheting together and crying out crucifiy him, his blood be upon us and our children? how is it they forgot about thier preplan to arrest jesus and HAND him over to pagan authourities? i tell you the trust , there is cleary a CLOUD over this bull s hit called crucfixion. did you know, the can’t even ATTACH A DATE TO it. and their fathers give different dates as to when it happened. this is a joke man.

  34. Imad says:

    “those who believed that Jesus was crucified were victims of Allah’s deceit. And over 600 years after the crucifixion Allah revealed to the World through Prophet Muhammad that he misled the crucifiers to think they had crucified Jesus.”

    Not really. Up until the Quranic revelation there was nothing blameworthy in believing that Jesus was crucified because people did not know any better. It was only blameworthy to believe that Jesus was God or Son of God (in a literal sense) because this goes against the principle of monotheism. However after the truth was revealed after six centuries, there is no excuse for people to believe in the crucifixion any more. So if people subscribe to this wrong idea NOW then it is blameworthy because to deny even a single verse of the Quran is unbelief.

    Hence there was no “deceit”.

    • mrk says:

      if you wanna talk about deception lets talk about pontius pilate and the sanhedrin who according to the earliest accounts believed that they finnished of a person who claimed to be a messiah. so they would die thinking that they were successful. visions and lights would prove what exactly? if they didn’t see the person come to them in person, then what would vision and lights prove? mark says that his jesus died on the cross saying ‘elai elai , why have you forsaken me’
      other gospel writers did not retain marks words word for word. luke and john completely omit these words. funny isn’t it, mark alleagedly knew jesus said ‘father in your hand i commend my spirit’ but choose to put others words in jesus’ mouth? was mark a fool who didn’t think to even clarify to those near by that he isn’t calling to elijah to rescue him? talk about DECEPTION.

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      IN QUR’AN 3:55, ALLAH SAID HE WOULD MAKE JESUS DIE BEFORE TAKING HIM TO HEAVEN

      Allah said in Koran 3:55 “Ya Isaa, inni mutawaffiqa ilayya…” meaning “O Jesus I shall cause you to die and I will raise you to
      myself…”

      Every Arabic grammarian and ordinary speaker of Arabic and languages that are similar to Arabic knows that ‘mutawaffika’ CLEARLY means Allah would ‘make Jesus die’ in terms of both the literal meaning and the contextual meaning of the word and the verse respectively.

      But, funny enough, in order to make it not contradict the verse (Koran 4:157) that denies the death and, therefore miraculous Resurrection of Jesus from death, ‘mutawaffika’ is given some very ridiculous translations by some ‘clever’ Muslims scholars.

      Thus they translate ‘mutawaffika’ as ‘gather you’ or ‘take you’ etc. So that the verse becomes ‘O jesus I will gather you (or take you etc) and raise you to myself.

      But apart from not being the meaning at all – at least literally – all the words or phrases that do not imply Jesus was to die, are redundant in the verse. For instance, how can God say He would ‘gather’ Jesus and raise him to Himself? or He would ‘take’ Jesus and raise him to Himself? What an unnecessary and inapplicable tautology. Do we have to tell lie to promote the religion of God? I salute those Muslim scholars and translators of the Koran who give the true meaning of ‘inni mutawaffika..’.

      One of the most prominent Qur’an translators, Yusuf Ali, observed in the footnote number 2485 of his 1975 Qur’an edition regarding the phrase ‘Ya Isaa, inni mutawaffiqa ilayya’ that:

      “…those who believe that he (Jesus) never died should ponder over this (3:55) verse.’

      This implies that he believed that Jesus died as clearly indicated by this verse.

      Expectedly, the editorial committee of the successive edition expunged Yusuf Ali’s observation.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        I have refuted the above here http://unveiling-christianity......-to-islam/. Don’t tell me what Arab grammarians would or would not say. I happen to have attended an Islamic university and not a single one of my more than 7 Arabic tutors understood the verse in that manner. I can assure you that the whole Arabic department at my university does not agree either.
        I will refute every other thing that Nur El Masih Ben Kaddhab has said later when I return from university in a few hours.

  35. mrk says:

    “those who believed that Jesus was crucified were victims of Allah’s deceit”

    Those who believed that they screwed, blued and tatoed your god and completely finnished him off were victims of yhwhs deception. trickery and guile. what would lights and visions prove? the guy failed to save israel from oppression. you think lights and visions saved israel? majority of israel would go home thinking “the darling of jerusalem got it handed to him”
    your gods words on the cross about being forsaken would be no different from a jew under roman oppression claiming yhwh why have you FORSAKEN us. a DIYING man saying it MAKES IT EVEN WORSE

    i know the words are an EMBARASSMENT to you thats why you have to read into it your gay interpretation of trinity to rescue jesus’ blasphemy.

    as for deception, hasn’t you and your religion TWISTED WORD defintions, played word games?

    and the jews near by assume that jesus is REQUESTING help FROM ELIJAH. now if luke can put words in jesus’ mouth about commending his spirit , why instead didn’t jesus mentioned about himself spliting himself from the trinity in mark ? you know it’s funny. if the jews thought that jc was quoting psalms why did they think that he was asking elijah to rescue him? then later gospel writers come along and rewrite the scenes .

    tell me something

    if a flying angel which glows like a christmas tree
    comes down and roles away the stone , strikes the guards down and says to the women, “DO NOT BE afRAID…”

    in marks account the women WALK in to the tomb and see a young man and he says , ” do not be amazed…”

    what the hell is SPECIAL about marks young man?

    if you only had marks account how would you reach a conclusion that it was a glowing angel before it converted in to a man?

    note in lukes account the women enter ARE PERPLEXED THEN suddenly 2 shining men appear

    problem

    in matthew the angel tells them, ” come , SEE where his body was laid”

    obviously the plane reading is that the angel is telling them to follow him into the tomb AFTER he tells them NOT to be AFRAID.

    in marks/lukes account the women enter the tomb

    ABSOLUTELY NO WAY can one saythat the angel IN THE TOMB was telling the women to COME into the tomb.

  36. Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

    QUR’AN 3:55 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT GOD WOULD CAUSE JESUS TO DIE BEFORE TAKING HIM UP TO HIMSELF

    The “Muta..” part of “mutawaffiqa” in Qur’an 3:55 is of the word “maut,” which means death in Arabic. “Muta..” part of “mutawaffiqa” has NOTHING to do with ‘gathering’ somebody. In fact, the word gathering or the like has NO business in Qur’an 3:55.
    Ibn Anwar I don’t think know the Qur’anic Arabic better than Yusuf Ali and co.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      hahaha. Conratulations for proving to all of us that you haven’t the slightest clue about Arabic. The word “mutawaffeeka” is derived from the root “wafyun”(wfn) as any Arabic lexicon will inform. The form “mutawaffeeka” is ism marfu’ wal kaf dhamir muttasil fi mahal jar bil idhafah. How do you know my Arabic is inferior to Yusuf Ali’s? lol. I undertook two years of Advanced Arabic under two tutors from Yemen and one from my university during secondary school. Thereafter, I continued with 5 years of Arabic at university with five qualified lecturers and professors in Arabic. I may not be an expert in Arabic, but I do believe I know what I’m talking about unlike you. Undoubtedly, Yusuf Ali’s translation is widely popular, but the person himself was never a qualified expert in Arabic. His official qualification was in English. My instructors are actual professors in Arabic. Academia wise, Yusuf Ali cannot be compared to them at all. In the article that contains my refutation to this issue, I cited for example Mufti Taqi Uthmani’s translation. Now there’s a scholar of Arabic and the Islamic sciences that is worth noting. The word in question has absolutely nothing to do with “maut” in it. The meem at the beginning is prefixed to the actual verb “tawaffa” due to the grammatical rule(specifically it is an active participle[ism al-fa’il]) that I have mentioned earlier(and it is in reference to the subject that is doing the action such as in the words mu’allim, muslim, mustanbit etc.). Mufti Shafi’ Uthmani rightly says, “Lexically, the word means ‘to take in full’.This being its real meaning, its derivations wafa, ifa’ and ‘istifa’ are used to convey that sense. In fact, the real meaning of tawaffi is ‘to take in full’ which is universalIy confirmed by all lexicons of the Arabic language. (Ma’riful Qur’an, Vol.2, pp. 77) . Imam Baydawi in his ‘al-musamma anwar al-tanzil wa asrar al-tawil’ for example provides the different shades of meanings that the word can have in different situations numbering five in all as noted by Geoffrey Parrinder in his ‘Jesus in the Qur’an’ on page 106 and Neal Robinson has a whole discussion on it in his ‘Christ in Islam and Christianity’. In fact, Robinson mentions that the form “tawaffa” occurs 25 times as a finite verb and only once as an active participle. He then lists the places where it is used and each convey different meanings such as ‘gathering’ or ‘receiving’ that imply death wherein angels or angelic messengers are the subject e.g. 4:97 and 6:61. He then gives four examples whereby God is the subject and the first category carries the meaning ‘to receive in death’ e.g. 10:104, ‘to receive in death’ prematurely e.g. 13:40, ‘to receive’ souls in sleep, which is likened to death(but is not death at all) e.g. 6:60 and finally ‘to receive’ Jesus e.g. 5:117 & 3:55. He does not mention the word death for the meaning ‘to receive’ designated for Jesus. (Robinson, N. (1991). Christ in Islam and Christianity: The Representation of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Classical Muslim Commentaries. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. pp. 118). At the end of the chapter specifically on “tawaffa” Robinson says:
      “It is therefore reasonable to suppose that it is also present in form VI and that tawaffa means ‘to receive completely’ or ‘to bring to completion’. Although death is normally concomitant there is no reason why there should not be exceptions. We should also note that the agent is invariably God or His angels and that the verb is often used when a seemingly premature demise is described or envisaged. In such cases the verb may in addition be intended to convey the idea that, despite appearances to the contrary, the human life or the prophetic mission was brought to completion by God. That this is so in 3:55 seems to be implied by the use of the first person pronoun followed by the definite article instead of the finite verb. When viewed in this light, interpretations [B] and [E] gain in plausibility.” (Ibid. pp. 125-126) Interpretation [B] that is mentioned in the quotation refers to Al-Tabari’s second interpretation which has the meaning as ‘I am going to grasp you from the earth and raise you to Myself’ and as Robinson correctly notes the implication of this is “that Jesus was taken up alive without experiencing death.” (Ibid. pp. 119-120) Interpretation [E] refers to the interpretation that is given by Zamakhshari, Al-Razi and Al-Baydawi(mentioned also by Mufti Shafi’ Uthmani in his tafsir). This interpretation says that God held Jesus safe from being killed and delayed his earthly demise to be imposed later.
      In any case, the root word “wafyun” from which the verb tawaffa is derived specifically and linguistically means to completely take something. Though the word can be used in a situation to describe physical death, that is by no means a necessary understanding as Neal Robinson astutely says. Finally, let us have a look at what Ibn Taimiyyah says in his ‘al-Jawab al-Sahih’ on “tawaffa”:
      “al-tawaffa fi lughah al ‘arabi ma’naha al-qabdh wal istifa’ wa dhalika thalah anwa’, Ahaduha, al-tawaffa fi al-nawm, al-thani tawaffa fil mawt, wa thalith tawaffa al-ruh wal badn jami’a” which means “Al-tawaffi, in the Arabic language, means: to exact fully or take in full. It is of three types; the first: to take in sleep; the second: to take in death; and the third: to take the soul and the body all together.” (Vol. 2, pp. 83)
      Would you like to demonstrate your ignorance further Nur El Masih Ben Haq? Please, be our guest and continue embarrasing yourself.

    • mrkiller says:

      “The “Muta..” part of “mutawaffiqa” in Qur’an 3:55 is of the word “maut,” which means death in Arabic. ”

      wtf are you talking about? you know NOTHING about active participles / passive participles? i bet you don’t even know how they function in english language

      you said “mu ta” = maut?

      so when verb form 5 is in passive imperfect /mudari3

      it would be yu ta

  37. Imad says:

    OMG what utter rubbish! Dude you’d better take some elementary Arabic lessons before making an ass of yourself again. The ‘muta’ of ‘mutawaffeeka’ (not mutawaffiqa) is meaningless by itself. It has NOTHING to do with ‘maut’. The root verb here is ‘tuwaffaa’ which means to gather or bring from one place to another. It can be used for physical death but has a variety of other meanings too, including moving from one country to another and also gathering to oneself, The ‘mu’ is an active participle which the speaker uses to explain that he is bringing the object from one place to another.
    Whether ‘Yusuf Ali and co.’ knew Arabic or not, one thing’s for sure, YOUR knowledge of Arabic is abysmal. I wouldn’t go down that lane if I were you. Try a different tack.

  38. Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

    THE WORLD KNOWS WHO YUSUF ALI WAS

    Typically of daawaists, you can do anthing to discredit Yusuf Ali or downplay his significance in Islamic world simply because he had said the fact about Qur’an 3:55. But it is too late for you. The world knows who Yusuf Ali was.

    JESUS HIMSELF COMFIRMED HE WOULD DIE BEFORE ASCENDING TO GOD

    Qur’an 19:29-33 “…. And peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I shall die and the day I shall be resurrected alive.”

    For those pushing an idea that this verse refers to a death which Jesus would experience at the end of his second coming, should ask themselves why did Jesus not say:

    “Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I ASCEND TO HEAVEN, THE DAY I COME BACK, the day I die and the day I shall be resurrected” if he was reffering to a death after the ascention and Second Coming?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      This is really sad. You know that you’re fighting a battle that you have already clearly lost. You lost the whole case when you tried to ignorantly argue that the sound “mut” from the word “mutawaffeeka” means “mawt”. That shows how shoddy your research skills are. Had you actually done your homework you would not have made yourself look so foolish making such a heinous error. It is evident that you can’t give me the basics of i’rab if your life depended on it and yet you had the audacity to try to “teach” us the language lol. I have refuted your claims in full and now you are just desperately clutching at straws as your boat sinks into oblivion. You really still think Yusuf Ali supports you? Here’s his translation of Al-Imran, verse 3:
      “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.”
      Nowhere does his translation actually says ‘to cause to die’ as Rodwell’s does. You claimed that I wanted to discredit Yusuf Ali. Notice in my reply that I did not actually try to do that. Rather, I was putting things in perspective since you compared my comprehension of the language to that of Yusuf Ali’s and tried to discredit me. Now, just because something is popular that does not make it right. That’s classic argumentum ad populum. Take the KJV for example. It has been the most popular and best selling Bible for such a long time. It still contains the Johannine Comma which is deemed as an interpolation by virtually every reliable textual scholar including Daniel Wallace, James White and numerous others from the conservative camp. Shall we say then despite recognised scholarship that the verse isn’t an interpolation because the KJV is so popular amongst Christians and non-Christians alike? The answer is no. So even if Yusuf Ali actually favoured a particular thing that does not automatically make it right just because he is popularly received. But as I have illustrated Yusuf Ali is actually with us and against you. I don’t expect you to own up to the falsehood that you tried to perpetuate, but I will remind you not to try and disseminate disinformation here again.

  39. Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

    MUTAWAFFIKA: MIX-UPS EXPLAINED

    Notice: Your pitiful excuses are hereby revoked for your own good. It is evident that you yourself made the mistake and to save face you have fallen into the trap of over explaining yourself which is a mark of a liar. Be thankful that it is not published.

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      IS IT NOT HARAM TO PROTECT A LIAR?

      I am very sure that you are more convinced that what I said is true than untrue. Why do you need to protect a liar. The best thing is to expose the liar’s lies so that others can be protected from his lies. If you observe, I am not bent on distancing myself from the article. It is the way that Ibn Anwar makes it an issue that compelled me to explain what happened as accrutely as possible. In fact, he implied that I don’t know Arabic that is why I exposed myself while trying to employ shoddy scholarship to convince readers that Jesus died before his ascension to God. But that, to me, is NOT as important as the real issue – which is whether ‘mutawaffika’ implies Allah would take Jesus’ life or not. Whatever I can ALWAYS explain myself so that is not a problem.
      And believe me or not, if I were in your shoes I would express similar doubt. So, I am not totally surprised that you doubt what I have written; because I would normally not indict myself but defend myself. A commentator could write something wrong only to try to rationalize his mistake later. The truth or otherwise of his innocence can only be guessed based on the situations relating to the matter and who the judge is.

      So, in short, the ball is in your court. But remember that this is an intellectual matter which takes the whole to look convincing to whoever important we want to convince.

      Meanwhile, I still stand by my belief that “mutawaffika” means ’cause you to die.’ I am NOT alone in on this. Many scholars do. And if you belief I really said the ‘muta’ from ‘mutawaffika’ came from ‘maut’ which means death in Arabic, you are not far from being right. When the time comes, all the mysteries will be clear.

      In the whole, I must admit, this is one of the best comparative religion websites. But pls don’t favor me in return of this praise — hahahaha!

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        No, it is not necessarily haram to protect a liar. Your mistake has already been clarified and exposed for all to see. There is no need for further embarrassment. It is evident to one and all that you had made the mistake and no amount of backpedaling and thin excuses can negate that. You can stand on your belief on whatever you wish. No one can force you to believe otherwise. However, you are standing along in trying to limit the meaning of mutawaffeeka. Even the Christian scholars that I cited above disagree with you. In the end you have been soundly refuted.

      • MRK says:

        “And if you belief I really said the ‘muta’ from ‘mutawaffika’ came from ‘maut’ which means death in Arabic…”

        if i said ‘muta QAATILUN’

        EXPLAIN to us what ‘muta’ does to the ‘QAAtilun’

  40. Ibn Anwar says:

    Oh and one more thing. I reaffirm that you do not know Arabic even if your life depended on it.

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      My life does not depend on any language (be it theological or secular). In fact I am neither a Clergy nor a grammarian. But alhamdulillah I have an ilm enough to enable me know which between Islam and Masihiyya is right for me. It is wajib for you to bring
      a hujjah al-haqiqa against Masihiyya otherwise my iman in Masihiyya will continue to increase kullu yaum!! No big Arabic (or even Hebrew) grammar from you can affect our iman in Masih Ruh’Allah and Kalimat-Ullah.
      Salam.

      • Imad says:

        “But alhamdulillah I have an ilm enough to enable me know which between Islam and Masihiyya is right for me.”

        Apparently not. The only thing you’ve demonstrated so far is a remarkable lack of ilm. By the way, “ilm” is a collective singular, used to describe more than one type of knowledge. Your use of the term “AN ilm” in the above sentence is totally misplaced. You’re supposed to say “I have ilm enough”. Another demonstration of your lack of ilm.

  41. MRK says:

    “And if you belief I really said the ‘muta’ from ‘mutawaffika’ came from ‘maut’ which means death in Arabic”

    you dopy BITCH you can’t even quote yourself properly. you said the word ‘muta’ in ‘mutawaffika’ means…

    when i say

    “mutaqaatilun”

    you explain what ‘muta’ does to the word ‘qaatilun’

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      Try to be more composed, calmed and objective. Your rants are too pedestrian and primitively insultive. My brother you better grow up!

  42. Ibn Anwar says:

    Nur El-Masih ben Haq said:
    “My life does not depend on any language (be it theological or secular). In fact I am neither a Clergy nor a grammarian. But alhamdulillah I have an ilm enough to enable me know which between Islam and Masihiyya is right for me. It is wajib for you to bring
    a hujjah al-haqiqa against Masihiyya otherwise my iman in Masihiyya will continue to increase kullu yaum!! No big Arabic (or even Hebrew) grammar from you can affect our iman in Masih Ruh’Allah and Kalimat-Ullah.
    Salam.”

    My reply:
    Nur, what does the book of Revelation say about those who lie? Do you really think that by using some familiar Arabic words you’re fooling any of us here? You have already exposed your utter ignorance once. To continue trying to pull wool over our eyes, yet embarrassing yourself further ia great disservice to yourself. I was actually thinking of asking you about al-madhi al-mabni lil majhul to see just how much of Arabic you know (just to illustrate to our dear readers that in fact you have no knowledge of it at all), but your joining together the indefinite article with ‘ilm(knowledge) shows the level of your comprehension which is zero.

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE VERY AFRAID OF EXPOSING MY LIES FOR THE WORLD TO SEE?
      If you are convinced I am lying, the proper and normal step is to publish my explanation for others to judge. Now you are afraid to allow fellow debaters read my explanation because you realized that I told the truth, and yet you are talking about me being a liar. Why CAN’T you publish it so that the world can know that I am a ‘liar.’ Why do you want to save me from further exposing myself? Don’t you think you are contradicting yourself?

      You said:
      “Do you really think that by using some familiar Arabic words you’re fooling any of us here? You have already exposed your utter ignorance once. To continue trying to pull wool over our eyes, yet embarrassing yourself further ia great disservice to yourself”

      I say:
      You should also know that words like ‘maut’ and ‘mutawaffika’ are very familiar because: ‘maut’ is in daily news and the controversy about ‘mutawaffika’ is an age-long one. The two words are very common and familiar especially among people like us.

      You said:
      ” your joining together the indefinite article with ‘ilm(knowledge) shows the level of your comprehension which is zero.”

      I say:
      When shall you stop crying wolf?

      You said:
      “I was actually thinking of asking you about al-madhi al-mabni lil majhul to see just how much of Arabic you know .”

      I say:
      Yes I know the meaning of “al-madhi al-mabni lil majhul.” It means “Ibn Anwar is afraid to allow Nur’s explanation to be published — supposedly in order to protect Nur from further exposing himself.”

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        We have exposed your lies for the whole world to see. I will not publish thin excuses that are of no value to our discourse at hand. This is not a market place where you can just say whatever you like. You should be grateful that I have allowed every single one of your comments with the exception of the nonsense about getting someone to respond for you and he was the one who got it wrong but not you. This kind of childish and clownish antics will not pass inspection. You can cry and moan all you want. Live with it. It is evident that you don’t know much of the things you try to argue for. It is also very clear that your knowledge of Arabic is no better than a child at kindergarten. I dare say his is most probably better. When shall I stop crying wolf? When will you stop crying like a bashful maiden and realise that you have been refuted? “an ‘ilm” indeed! lol

      • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

        YOU ARE NOT SURE YOU EXPOSED ME

        If you are actually sure you have exposed me, then you are supposed to sound happy.
        As a matter of fact, whether my explanation is published or not does not change any thing. It is you that is so particular about it. You feast on it and you mourn over it. And it is the same you that is afraid that publishing my explanation is an alibi to my benefit, yet the same you feels I don’t have an alibi. So it is you against you.
        I am OK with whatever pleases you about this matter. It is a storm in the tea cup.

  43. Ibn Anwar says:

    نور المسيح بن حق,
    هذا في التفسير البيضاوي المسمى لأ نور التنزيل ولاسرار التأويل
    أي مستوفي أجلك ومؤخرك إلى أجلك المسمى ، عاصماً إياك من قتلهم ، أو قابضك من الأرض من توفيت مالي ، أو متوفيك نائماً إذ روي أنه رفع نائماً ، أو مميتك عن الشهوات العائقة عن العروج إلى عالم الملكوت . وقيل أماته الله سبع ساعات ثم رفعت إلى السماء وإليه ذهبت النصارى
    (البيضاوي ، ناصر الدين أبي سعيد عبدالله بن عمر بن محمد الثيرازي (1966م) . تفسير البيضاوي المسمى لأنوار التنزيل و لأسرار التأويل. بيروت ، لبنان : دارالكتب العلمية. 162)

    هل انت تفهم؟

    • Imad says:

      “Hal anta tafham?”

      Lol!!!! That’ll be the day.

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      My dear Ibn Anwar,

      Instead of this diversionary tactics, why not just explain how al-Hajr al-Aswad descended from Heaven, originally white but observed the sins of the world to become a Black Stone? When is Hajr Aswad ascending back to Heaven (where it supposedly came from) like Jesus did? Is Allah not supposed to be the only one to reveal that Hajr Aswad came from Heaven? But actually who revealed the origin of Hajr Aswad? Has Allah EVER said ANYTHING about Hajr Aswad? Can you even show me any Hadith in which Prophet Muhammad endorsed al-Hajr al-Aswad? I need these answers with due respect.

      Do you understand?

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        جامع الترمذي, كتاب الحج, باب ما جاء في الحجر الاسود
        هذا حديث مرفوع و حسن
        (حديث مرفوع) حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ ، عَنْ جَرِيرٍ ، عَنْ ابْنِ خُثَيْمٍ ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ ، عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي الْحَجَرِ : ” وَاللَّهِ لَيَبْعَثَنَّهُ اللَّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ لَهُ
        عَيْنَانِ يُبْصِرُ بِهِمَا ، وَلِسَانٌ يَنْطِقُ بِهِ يَشْهَدُ عَلَى مَنِ اسْتَلَمَهُ بِحَقٍّ ”

        مشكاة المصابيح
        نزل الحجر الأسود من الجنة وهو أشد بياضا من اللبن فسودته خطايا بني آدم

        روى الترمذي وأحمد الحاكم وابن حبان أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم قال: إن الركن والمقام ياقوتتان من ياقوت الجنه طمس الله تعالى نورهما ولو لم يطمس نورهما لأضاءتا ما بين المشرق والمغرب

        وروى الإمام أحمد عن انس بن مالك والنساء عن ابن عباس عن النبي قال: الحجر الاسود من الجنه

        عن ابن عباس قال: الحجر الأسود يمين الله في الأرض، فمن صافحه وقبَّله فكأنما صافح الله وقبل يمينه. ومن تدبر اللفظ المنقول تبين له أنه لا إشكال فيه إلا على من لم يتدبره، فإنه قال: يمين الله في الأرض، فقيده بقوله: في الأرض، ولم يطلق، فيقول: يمين الله، وحكم اللفظ المقيد يخالف حكم اللفظ المطلق

  44. Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

    It appears you have not understood my questions.

    (A). Allah supposed to have, at some point, revealed to Prophet Muhammad where al-Hajr al-Aswad came from. Where is the verse in which Allah talked about al-Hajr al-Aswad in the Qur’an?

    (B). Logically, Prophet Muhammad supposed to have, at some point, ENDORSED al-Hajr al-Aswad’s present status as regards its placement inside Kaaba, the holliest mosque in Islam.

    I am of course aware of the following shirks:

    (1). .Al-Tirmidhi HadithHadith 2577 Narrated byAbdullah ibn Abbas
    Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “The black stone descended from Paradise whiter than milk, but the sins of the descendants of Adam made it black.”

    (2). Tareekh Baghdad” by Al-Khatib (6/328), “Al-‘ilal Al-Mutanahiya (2/944):
    The Black Stone is Allah’s right hand on earth with which He shakes the hands of His slaves

    (3). 2944. Sa’d b. Jubair (Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said, “I heard Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) saying that Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings Allah be upon him) said, “This Stone must come on the Day of Resurrection and it will have two eyes to see with and a tongue to talk with bearing witness for him who caressed it with Truth (Islam).”

    But all these are Hadiths, which supposed to have a backing verse from the Qur’an since only God is supposed to have revealed to Muhammad and co that al-Hajr al-Aswad came from Heaven, it was white blablabla…. No one could know just like that.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      It would appear that you are an idiotic fool who thinks he knows something about Islam. It would clearly appear to everyone that you have been refuted 10 times over and yet like The Bull who is now M.I.A. you continue forward shamelessly. When did you become the Pope of Allah to dictate what Allah is supposed to do and what He is not supposed to do ya ahmaq? Secondly, the hajar al-aswad is not inside the ka’bah you uneducated ignoramus. It is placed at the side of the Ka’ba, not inside it. The Ka’ba itself is not a mosque in Islam as you so ignorantly said. It is Masjidul Haram that is the mosque and the Ka’bah resides within. Is there no end to your ignorance? It was you who asked, “Can you even show me any Hadith in which Prophet Muhammad endorsed al-Hajr al-Aswad?” I have produced no less than two clear narrations that you do not understand in Arabic that show the Prophet’s endorsement of hajar al-aswad. Now, I want to ask you to please tell me how is it that your god actually travelled through the birth canal and that you are in fact worshiping a flesh and blood man? Don’t tell me that it is the spirit within the flesh that you worship for this will take you out of the pale of standard Trinitarian theology of the hypostatic union. You have a problem with Muslims giving their respects to a rock, but you have no problem at all with the idea that the source of holiness actually went through the birth canal and it is in respect of Jesus’ mother that I do not use the V word. This is the level of nonsense that we are witnessing from Nur el-dajjal Ben Kadhdhab.

      • mrk says:

        these polythiests have to eat and drink their gods flesh n blood in a methaphorical way. now be honest, doesn’t it create a picture in your mind when you think of flesh and blood? notice that the entire religion is obsessed with FLESH? their religion argues that god is totally UNKNOWABLE unless he dress up as a man and do what NORMAL human beings do. so they have to think of this god , not in spiritual terms but fleshly terms. no honest person can deny this. the god in christianity is a man crapping, talking, urinating, crying, breaking wind, drinking wine, cursing, abusing jews in public ect ect
        like i said, god is unknowable to them unless he wears a fleshly disguise, breaks wind, cries, urinates , talks to himself ect ect.
        they have the cross
        a symbol of death and destruction
        many jews saw their people nailed to crosses

        josephus wrote

        Wars of the Jews 5.11.2.
        Quote:

        … So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews,
        nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after
        another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so
        great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for
        the bodies. (19)….

        now you can ALREADY create an image of bodies on crosses and crosses WANTING for bodies

        now in 2011 a polythiest religion called kristianity selling the symbol of death and destruction and beautifying it . yet imagine how SICKENING it would have been to a people who saw bodies hanging off crosses?

      • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

        Ibn Anwar,
        Something MUST be alarmingly wrong, if you can’t find where Allah said ANYTHING about al-Hajr al-Aswad, which supposedly:
        i. Came from Heaven and absorbed the sin of the world.
        ii. Will intercede on the Last Day for those who venerate it
        iii. Is the Hand of Allah in the world etc.
        If Allah has never said anything about al-Hajr al-Aswad, who then revealed the above information to the Muslims? Were the information fabricated or obtained from the ORIGINAL OWNERS , the pagans?

        On the Endorsement
        I had started citing these Hadiths even before you cited them. They don’t imply Muhammad’s endorsement of the placement of al-Hajr al-Aswad in the Muslims’ most holy shrine, the Kaabah. They are mere claims. Muhammad of Allah could endorse the placement of al-Hajr al-Aswad at the point where every Muslim in the world faces to worship with or without the statements in these Hadith.
        Let me put it this way: If situating al-Hajr al-Aswad in Kaabah was based on Allah or Muhammad’s instruction, it follows that at some point Allah or Muhammad has utter words to that effect. Where are such words? And at worse there should be Allah’s or Muhammad’s endorsement of the placement. Where is even the endorsement by Muhammad?

        Just calm down.

      • Imad says:

        Brother Ibn Anwar, please do us all a favour. Don’t delete this clown’s comments any more. They have great comedic value. I haven’t laughed this hard in ages.

  45. Ibn Anwar says:

    Nur El Dajjal Ben Kaddhab,
    There is nothing alarming wrong with the absence of the hajar al-aswad in the Qur’an. For you to continue belabouring this point shows that you know little about the sources used in Ahl Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. There are several other things that are part and parcel of our faith, yet are not in the Qur’an. Most of the activities that are done during hajj are not specified in the Qur’an, but are rather found in the Sunnah. The information was revealed by the Prophet s.a.w. and his companions. That’s it.

    No, you did not cite the ahadith before I did. I cited the ahadith in Arabic and because you don’t understand the language you thought that I never cited them. The evidence for the placement of the stone is the hadith of Ibn Jabir Ibn Abdullah in Muslim which talks about tawaf and how the stone is touched and kissed thereafter. Then there is the hadith of Ibn Umar cited by al-Tirmidhi, Al-Dhahabi and al-Hakim whereby he quotes the Prophet s.a.w. saying, “Touching them both (the Black Stone and the Yemeni corner) is an expiation for one’s sins.” This narration indicates where the stone was placed. In any case, the hajj is something that has been going on since the time of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. The activities and rituals during hajj have been passed down from one group of pilgrims to the next, from one generation to the following. Thus there is a continuous chain of transmission of how things are done. In addition, we have the narrative about the dispute regarding the black stone that was resolved through Muhammad’s s.a.w. intervention. The location of the black stone has never been changed since that time.

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      You said:
      “There are several other things that are part and parcel of our faith, yet are not in the Qur’an.”
      I say:
      It all depends on how critical they are. Secondly, I have told you that Hajr Aswad was among the other things you retained from the pagan Arabs as a compromise. In fact, according to Hadith al-Gharanic you, at some point, recognized al-Lat, al Manat and al Uzza as divine with backing Qur’anic verses but later withdrew the recognition and modified the verses for some controversial reasons.

      *notice: your aberrant and incessant repetitions are tiresome. Thus those parts that have already been refuted, yet repeated by you have been expunged.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        Show me the details on the hajj given in the Qur’an Nur El-Masih. You can’t. I have already explained that the placement of the stone is based on the seerah of the Prophet s.a.w. and the tradition and practice handed down from that time till now. The pilgrimage has been going on for 1400 years(not counting the umrah as well). Altogether they prove vital evidence for the historical veracity of each and every single known detail of the hajj.
        the qissatul gharaniq have been proven to be unworthy of notice by Qadi Iyyad and others. None of the narrations are sahih. There is absolutely no evidence for the acknowledgment of such nonsense. It is Christian absurdity due to desperation that they still cling to this propaganda. What we do know is that YHWH was a pagan deity.
        “An Israelite Bronze Bull, dating from the period of the Judges (c. 1200 B.C.E.). Found on a “high place” or cultic site in the hills of Samaria, this figurine (7 inches long, 5 inches high), symbolizing power and fertility, apparently was associated with the worship of Yahweh as well as Baal (cf. Judg. 6:25)

        It is likely, however, that the story of Exodus 32 rests upon a tradition much older than Jeroboam I and indicates that some ancient circles believed that the bull could legitimately be used to symbolize the supremacy of Yahweh.” (Bernhard W. Anderson (1988). The Living World of the Old Testament. Harlow, England: Longman Group UK Limited. pp. 104)

        In a footnote to the above quotation Anderson mentions the following:
        “See Frank M. Cross, “Yahweh and El” [112], 73-75, who argues that in northern circles the Bull was a symbol of the high god ‘El, with whom Yahweh was identified…”

  46. Ibn Anwar says:

    Now, are you going to answer my question to you or not? You have a problem with Muslims adoring a stone, but you have no problems or qualms about the idea that the source of Holiness and Perfection, the God of the universe actually travelled through the birth canal(v*****)?

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      YOU LACK ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDE ABOUT SPIRITUALITY

      You have demonstrated the normal Muslims’ ignorance about spirituality. You evaluate and interpret spiritual situation mundanely. God the father didn’t have to enter any birth canal. The INCARNATION of Jesus did not take place in the ORDINARY Maryam despite her being chaste right from the beginning.
      To qualify Maryam for the birth of Jesus, God (Allah) necessarily exalted her in advance ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION, for birth is the women’s GREATEST pride and, yet Mary would EXTRA-ORDINARILY give the birth that is the GREATEST of all times. See Luke 1:28, 30:34, 41-44, 48-49, and 54-55. Also says Qur’an 3:42, “….O Mary! Allah has CHOSEN thee, and PURIFIED thee, and PREFERRED thee ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION”.

      And the reason is that God existed before time and space came into being. Therefore his existence does NOT follow the ordinary principle of physics which has time and space among its parameters. Thus God can be in many (in fact EVERY) places at the same time. That was why His Spirit was able to be inside His Word turned flesh called Jesus, who came to act an ideal human.

      If God felt that even after his additional and perfect purification and elevation of Maryam, her birth organs were still an-najas, he could still effect the birth Christ by Maryam without using the organs. So, if he had allowed the birth to take place through the birth canal, the canal must have been purified like Maryam herself (assuming it is possible to purify Maryam exclusive of her private parts, astagfirullah!).

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        You lack essential knowledge of Christian theology. Standard mainstream Trinitarian theology teaches that the incarnation took place in Mary’s womb. It is in this womb that the second person of the Trinity existing in two natures simultaneously resided. Thereafter he came out of the birth canal which then means that GOD travelled through it and you hesitate to admit this directly because you know it is a horrid idea. Was the organ purified like Mary herself? Luke 2:22 says otherwise. It says Mary had to undergo the purification term according to the Mosaic determination which lasted for 40 days. Your own book refutes you on this. Even if the birth canal was purified..how exactly was it purified? in what way? Was there no blood and excess when Jesus was born? No Christian well-schooled in theology will say that since it is standard thinking that Jesus was fully human and his birth was fully human-like with the exception of a male intervention. Even if there was no blood or excess(though this is absolutely false) accompanying Jesus’ birth, he still came out of the PRIVATE PART! You truly believe (purified or otherwise) the birth canal is something that God literally went through? How different are you from Hindus Nur El-Masih Ben Haq?

      • mrk says:

        there is verbal juglary again. the pagan wrote:

        “And the reason is that God existed before time and space came into being. Therefore his existence does NOT follow the ordinary principle of physics which has time and space among its parameters. Thus God can be in many (in fact EVERY) places at the same time. That was why His Spirit was able to be inside His Word turned flesh called Jesus, who came to act an ideal human. ”

        questions
        1.this SPIRIT god of yours, HOW much more is he GLUED to the flesh of jesus THAN any OTHER item/place?

        2. is he glued to jesus 10% 20% …100% ?

        3.is he in other places 10% 20%… 100%

        4. gods CREATED time and space and you said his spirit ENTERED time and place, are you telling me DIVINE NATURE entered TIME AND SPACE?

        5.if you believe 100% spirit god was glued to the CREATED flesh of jesus in his MOTHERS womb, then do you believe that 100% spirit god and CREATED flesh flowed OUT OF private PART?

        6. WAS THERE MORE OF SPIRIT GOD IN THE WOMB THAN OUTSIDE OF IT OR WAS THE AMOUNT EQUAL FOR BOTH SIDES?

        7. are you not admiting that the FLESH and blood of your god was not DIVINE in any way? meaning the flesh and blood of your god was shit? if adam was filled with DIVINE spirit, than DOES THAT MEAN ACCORDING TO YOU THAT ADAM is a god?

        8.you said your god can be in any place, that means when he is turning away from the son when he (son ) is on the cross,he is not TURNING AWAY in another place cause he is looking at something else

        9. or do you believe that all of god FOCUSED on the son when the son’s fmeat was hung on a cross?

  47. mrk says:

    nur al masih

    when jesus was DRINKING his mothers MILK was the spirit of god FEELING it in anyway? was divine nature feeling it in any way?

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      The entire process was programed the way it went for we the real humans to understand. Says Allah according to Qur’an 6:9, “Had We appointed an ANGEL our messenger, We ASSUREDLY had made him LIKE A MAN SO THAT HE MIGHT SPEAK TO (associate with) MEN….”

  48. mrk says:

    nur al masih

    when jesus was DRINKING his mothers MILK was the spirit of god FEELING it in anyway? was divine nature feeling it in any way?

    mrk:

    i don’T know why these pagans hate marcion so much. you can clearly see marcionite dna in christianity.

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      THE HUMAN NATURE EXHITED BY JESUS IS LOGICALLY THE EVIDENCE OF INCARNATION
      (Note that it is not a human being becoming God but God becoming human being via INCARNATION)

      In addition to what MRK said, Muslims often cite John 5:30-31; Mark 13:32-33 and John 1428 etc as disproofs of Christ’s divinity. But, logically, these verses, rather than disprove Jesus’ divinity, expressed the anticipated and expected demonstrations of the character that was Jesus-in-exemplary-typical-human-nature and , therefore , in accordance with God’s programme as stated in the Qur’an 6:9 and:-

      (1) Phil. 2:6, “Who (Jesus) being in very nature God, did NOT consider equality with God something to grasp, 7 But made himself NOTHING, taking the very nature of a SERVANT, being made in human likeness 8, and found in appearance as a MAN, he HUMBLED himself and became OBEDIENT to the death, even death in the cross”

      (2) Heb. 2:16, “For surely it is NOT ANGELS that he (Jesus) helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 FOR THIS REASON HE (GOD) HAD TO MAKE HIM (JESUS) LIKE HIS BROTHERS IN EVERY WAY in order that……” (Compare Qur’an 6:9)

      (3) Rom. 8:3, “(Jesus)….in the LIKENESS OF A SINFUL MAN……….”
      So, in the light of these verses, it should be clear that Jesus’ humanized acts did not mean that he was actually a human being (John 8:23) but were the divinely designs that were to make Jesus not unnecessarily scare the humans but, rather be their SOURCE OF INSPIRATIONS.

      Muslims’ query presuppose the incarnation of Jesus was from Man to God. They exhibit poor sense of judgment and inability to avaluate in terms of the new condition in operation.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        I’m getting tired of refuting the same old arguments again and again by Nur el-masih Ben haq the failure. Instead I’ll let his fellow Christian do the job.

  49. mrk says:

    “….O Mary! Allah has CHOSEN thee, and PURIFIED thee, and PREFERRED thee ABOVE ALL THE WOMEN OF CREATION”.

    THESE MUSHRIKEEN FOR CENTURIES HAVE READ kristian/salbstian THEOLOGY into torah now he invented his tahra/saff idea and is imposing it unto the qur’aan. WHERE DID QUR’AAN SAY THAT MARYAMS, PEACE BE UPON HER, FLESH WAS FREE FROM NAJAS? IS NOT THE AYAH TALKING ABOUT HER NAFS/SPIRITUAL PART RATHER THAN THE FLESH PART?

    i know you don’t know jack about science but from a scientific perspective an IDOL IS FREE from filth. it is more free from filth than a womans private part. so lets see, an idol worshipper can argue the same thing and say god enters his FREE from filth idol. you are a MUSHRIK man, just admit it. had moses had an ENCOUNTER with you, and if the old testament version of events is what really happened , then i swear to God you would have lost your mushrik head and it would have been smashed to pieces.

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      SCIENTIFICALLY, GOD IS NOT QUANTITATIVELY DEFINABLE (GOD IS NOT MATHEMATICALLY ONE)!!

      Quantification is a function of time and space. But God (or the First Cause) is a pre-time/space entity. The First Cause (or God) was there long before time and space came into being. Before time and space were created scientifically, there was nothing like quantity and yet there was God. Now Muslims ask your selves: how could God have been quantified as physically one at the time when there was no time, no space and no gravity? So, quantification applies only to the created and not the First Creator; it applies only to cosmically confined entities and not to entity capable of extra-cosmic residency. We don’t even need quantum mathematics to prove that.

      To put it simply, ‘quantifiability’ of an entity is just obedience to the principle of physics in relation to time and space; and the principle of physics is a post-creation phenomenon. In other words, quantity, which is a function of created parameters of the principle of physics such as time, space and gravity etc, applies only to post-creation entities or cosmic confinements.

      Thus since the First Cause (or God) is a pre-creation entity. He can’t be limited by time space and gravity etc. And as such, he is not mathematically one. He is one only in purpose and not in physics. So contrary to the simplistic belief or idea of the Muslims, God is not quantitatively one.

      Quantity is a cosmic limitation of entity imposed by time, space and gravity among other parameters of the principle of physics. It again follows that only post-creation entities are mathematically quantifiable. It follows that The First Cause (or God) which necessarily existed before the creation (or specifically before time, space and gravity) is not mathematically one. Actually, he is not quantitatively definable. That is why God addresses himself as both I and we in the Holy Bible.

      Primitive Respect

      The Muslims’ Tauhid of Perceiving God as mathematically one is a pre-science and primitive concept of respect to the Almighty. In reality, God is not confined to cosmic residence.

      But The Bible Too Says God is One

      Yes, God is one in purpose. Yet God is everywhere at a time; goes to everywhere at a time and comes from everywhere at a time—he is already at where he goes—he is NOT limited by time and space etc. That is why God addresses himself as both I and we.

      The Concept of Trinity

      So, the Christians’ concept of Trinity does not contradict the nature of God since it simply talks of three ways in which God expressed his unlimited personality.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        The above is sheer absurdity veiled in nonsense jargon. He is trying to say that you can’t quantify God mathematically(with numbers), yet he quantifies God with the number THREE. In the last sentence he says that God’s personality is unlimited, yet he does limit God to only THREE expressions or persons. Can he be more than three or less? The standard Trinitarian theoloy says no. He will forever be three persons and never more or less. Nur el-Masih ben Haq said, “Yet God is everywhere at a time; goes to everywhere at a time and comes from everywhere at a time”. Christians never fully appreciate the impact that statements like this have. So God is everywhere at a time which means then that God is in every mosque, every Muslim everywhere and everytime. If that is true then Christians should bow down in worship to Muslims and to practically everything since He is EVERYWHERE. When you bathe in the toilet, Nur el-Masih’s God is literally there with you. When you defecate in the toilet, his god is literally in the bowl, the excrement, the anus…everywhere. I’m trying to use as little explicit words as possible lol. It would appear that Nur el-Masih is embracing his Hindu roots pretty well.

      • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

        You said:
        “The above is sheer absurdity veiled in nonsense jargon. He is trying to say that you can’t quantify God mathematically(with numbers), yet he quantifies God with the number THREE.”

        I say:
        Can you quote where ever Christians or the Bible claims that God is three? There is difference between saying that something as personified or expressed itself in three ways and saying that it is three. God in the Bible (and you have copied too into your Qur’an without knowing the implication) uses both the words ‘WE” and “I.” He uses “We” to express his unlimitedness and “I.” to express his ONEness in purpose and spirit.

        But to say that Allah is mathematically one (By saying don’t say three … Allah is one..) is to evaluate God in terms of time and space, which is very intellectually anachronistic because God existed even before the creation of time and space. In fact, being physically quantifiable is a weakness because it is an evidence of being subject to time and space. May Allah give you wisdom.

  50. mrk says:

    this video is from a christian. this one realised that the trinity is bull shit

  51. The Bull says:

    From a previous post:
    Ibn Anwar said: “Was it really John as first identified by Iranaeus that according to you received the information from Polycarp?”
    A: John received information from Polycarp? Polycarp was a disciple of John according to Irenaeus.
    A2: I am saying that Polycarp received information from John, not the other way around as you have implied.

    Ibn Anwar said: “I have already explained the concept of Shaliach(agency) to you..”
    A: I understand the concept of Shaliach(agency). All I am saying is that if this is the case, why is Jesus receiving worship in heaven when God is also present there? (i.e. you don’t need Jesus to ‘transfer’ the worship through). See the logic? Also Proskyneo is only given to Lamb and God in heaven. Where is Muhammad? He was only a man. The angels, Adam or any of the prophets. No. You need to re-read Revelation chapter 5, particularly verse 13 and 14.

    You said: “I have already stated that specific religious devotion and worship(letreuo) is given to the Father and never to Jesus”
    The word letreuo (a hired menial/servant) is translated ‘serve’ 13 times and only 3 times as ‘worship’. The word proskyneo is translated ‘worship’ 60 times and in every case proskyneo of God and Jesus is the only accepted worship.
    Many times this word is used to describe the worship of the Father. Also, John is rebuked by and angel and ordered to worship (proskyneo) God, not the angel (Revelation 22:9). You assertion that proskyneo does not merit the divinity of Christ therefore does not hold.

    Ibn Anwar said: “But you see, the word theos in Greek according to Thayer’s lexicon has got at least four definitions.”.
    A: Isaiah 45:5,21 says that there are no Gods beside him. The word theos does denote other entities in very few cases. Clearly these examples denote false gods (i.e. Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4), Rempham (Acts 7:43) and even the belly (Philipians 3:19). Clearly in these examples and others, these entities are not gods beside God.
    The case of Hebrews 1:8 is different. Jesus is attested to being an approved ‘God’. You also cannot answer the fact that the author of Hebrews was quoting Psalm 45:6 which is referring specifically to God. While we are on the topic read John 5:18. You see the Jews (experts in religion) also thought Jesus was saying he was God. Also verse 10 is backed up by Colossians 1:16. Everywhere you turn, your theology is found un-biblical.

    Ibn Anwar said: “You actually burst your own bubble and you don’t even realise it. I said, “You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation.” Notice the words “AT THIS POINT IN REVELATION”
    A: You’re good at semantics but not on substance. The point is both Jesus and God are Alpha and Omega in all translations, something you are desperately trying to circumnavigate.

    You said: “In fact, Melchizedek is described as WITHOUT BEGINNING of days or END of life. According to you Jesus is the beginning and the end. Melchizedek is described as “LIKE THE SON OF GOD”, but isn’t Jesus the “son of God”? How can Melchizedek be the Son of God and at the same time LIKE the son of God?”
    A: According to your logic, God who is also the beginning and end cannot be without beginning of days or end of life, which is absurd. You are not applying commonsense to some of your arguments and are making dogmatic statements without room for negotiation. Similarly, just because Melchizedek is ‘like’ the Son of God, this does not disqualify him from being such.

    Ibn Anwar said: I gave the example of Melchizedek who is basically described as eternal which is supposed to be God’s unique characteristic, yet the only response I was given by The Bull is, “nah, I don’t believe this”.
    A: I never said that above quote. Melchizedek has one of Gods unique qualities and this sits well with him being the pre-incarnate Christ.

    You said: “A roman Catholic clergyman? Waraqa Bin naufal was not a Catholic you dumb idiot. Nowhere does it identify which sect or denomination of Christianity he belonged to. If you make any more of such tremendously foolish statements you will be permanently exiled from this forum.”
    A: According to Roman Catholic theology the first Christian community to emerge apart from their own (beginning in 30AD) was the Greek Orthodox church in 1054. The visable church at Muhammads time was the Catholic Church which later split into the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) Churches. So you could say Waraqa was almost certainly Catholic. In this light is it interesting that Muhammad taught Roman Catholic theology, namely the immaculate conception (of Mary).

    Ibn Anwar said: “The revelation that Moses received at the beginning was witnessed by no one, just like the first revelation that was given to the Prophet Muhammad.”
    A: Yes. But there is a distinction. Moses did not receive the Law in the first revelation. The receiving of the Law was witnessed. Not so for the Quran.
    Also, read Deuteronomy 4:32-35. This shows that the signs were powerful and were a witness that God was with the Israelites. Not so for Islam and Muhammad. The miracles you quote are in my opinion insignificant compared to the Glory of God revealed to Israel.

    Ibn Anwar said: “You said that Muhammad received new doctrinal information.”
    A: Go ask the Rabbis, who ‘support’ your theology, whose son was supposed to be sacrificed by Abraham and who his real wife was. I’m sure you know a lot more than me on this topic. You tell me.

    Ibn Anwar said: “But, let’s see what the text says, ““It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John.”. The key word there is “believed”. There are just no hard facts to prove the alleged connection.”
    A: There is a hard fact. It’s called a letter sitting in a museum somewhere. You don’t seem to need facts when making conclusions anyway. To quote you:

    “They do not say it as a fact, but rather as a probable occurrence. Historians involved in this area of study base their judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data. Using the historical method scholars comb through available historical materials, assess them and thereafter produce what they think to be the most probable conclusion.”

    A Conclusion:
    It seems apparent that you already know the answers to many of the questions you pose to me from a Christian viewpoint. You also know the rebuttals and then you know the counter rebuttals and then you know the counter-counter rebuttals (on both sides). You could actually be a fine Christian apologist with the knowledge you have. I hope you come to your senses soon. You are well versed to actually prove many Christian doctrines. It’s just your personal bias and upbringing in Islam that is holding you back. You persist in calling black white and white black. May Jesus shine his light upon you.

    Abu Ismail Jaafar said: “Paul should have warned himself, since HIS gospel contradicts Jesus.”
    A: No, Your “gospel” contradicts Jesus. On the most important points, the crucifixion, atonement and resurrection, you and Islam disagree with the Gospels and Paul who agree with each other. Paul was with the early church and was in unison with them.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said:
      A: John received information from Polycarp? Polycarp was a disciple of John according to Irenaeus.
      A2: I am saying that Polycarp received information from John, not the other way around as you have implied.

      My reply:
      We have already discuss this at length. I and the other brothers have proven that you haven’t any evidence to establish that Polycarp received teaching from John and the former then taught Iranaeus. The only proof you have is Iranaeus’ claim regarding it. Hardly any scholar alive considers the tradition valid testimony. I will ask you to refrain from repeating yourself in your next replies.

      You said:
      A: I understand the concept of Shaliach(agency). All I am saying is that if this is the case, why is Jesus receiving worship in heaven when God is also present there? (i.e. you don’t need Jesus to ‘transfer’ the worship through). See the logic? Also Proskyneo is only given to Lamb and God in heaven. Where is Muhammad? He was only a man. The angels, Adam or any of the prophets. No. You need to re-read Revelation chapter 5, particularly verse 13 and 14.

      My reply:
      No, you do not understand the concept of ‘Shaliach’ or emissary/agency because if you did you would not have contended that Jesus is God because he bears some resemblance to Him in terms of titles. You said, “All I am saying is that if this is the case, why is Jesus receiving worship in heaven when God is also present there?” I have already refuted this. Why are you so slow? I have already explained that according to 1 Timothy 6:16 God will not be physically present there as He “lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see…” I have already refute this in full. Let us reproduce my refutation ONE MORE time. If you repeat yourself again the next time you can be sure that your communication here will be forfeited for good. I have already warned you too many times not to repeat yourself after you have been refuted without actually rebutting the given refutation. The following is my previous reply:
      Idiots speak idiot language. I have already explained this and yet you fail to comprehend. As usual, let’s reproduce what I said:
      I have already explained the concept of Shaliach(agency) to you. I’ll explain it one more time. Say you have speakers on your computer and I am your King. You start hearing my voice and you tremble in awe and fall down in obeisance. Are you falling down to the speakers or the voice? In reality you are bowing down to me even though I may not be exactly in front of you to receive your bow. The speakers signify Jesus through which God speaks and so the worshipping/proskoneo of Jesus is actually in reality directed to the One who sent him. Remember 1 Timothy 6:16 which clearly says that God dwells in an unapproachable light which means that you can’t actually approach and worship Him. Jesus then will be like a symbol for God i.e. His agent. Recall my analogy of an ambassador and his state of origin wherein the President whom he represents resides in.
      –end of quote–
      In addition, in the Qur’an we have the story of Adam being worshipped by all the denizens of heaven including angels. No Muslim has ever taken that as a sign of Adam’s divinity. Rather that worship was out of respect and not a show of religious devotion. So what if every knee will boy down to Jesus’ name according to Paul’s view? I don’t necessarily believe that, but I do believe that every knee will bow down before Muhammad’s name. That however does not mean I have promoted him to divinity. I have already stated that specific religious devotion and worship(letreuo) is given to the Father and never to Jesus. Since you have quoted from Strong’s concordance why don’t you look up the definition for “proskuneo”. The definition it gives is that of a dog licking the hand of its master. This is the sense behind the word in question.

      You said:
      A: Isaiah 45:5,21 says that there are no Gods beside him. The word theos does denote other entities in very few cases. Clearly these examples denote false gods (i.e. Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4), Rempham (Acts 7:43) and even the belly (Philipians 3:19). Clearly in these examples and others, these entities are not gods beside God.
      The case of Hebrews 1:8 is different. Jesus is attested to being an approved ‘God’. You also cannot answer the fact that the author of Hebrews was quoting Psalm 45:6 which is referring specifically to God. While we are on the topic read John 5:18. You see the Jews (experts in religion) also thought Jesus was saying he was God. Also verse 10 is backed up by Colossians 1:16. Everywhere you turn, your theology is found un-biblical.

      My reply:
      I never claimed that in 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan becomes actual God besides God. Your stupendous lack of understanding is stunning Bull****. I have already explained SO MANY TIMES that the word ‘theos’ is applicable for entities other than god i.e. those who occupy some position of respect, importance and significance. You conveniently left out 82nd Psalms because there the judges are called GOD by God Himself like the case of Hebrews 1:8. You also conveniently left out Exodus 7:1 where God made Moses God over Pharoah. Hence, you have failed miserably as usual.

      You said:
      Ibn Anwar said: “You actually burst your own bubble and you don’t even realise it. I said, “You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation.” Notice the words “AT THIS POINT IN REVELATION”
      A: You’re good at semantics but not on substance. The point is both Jesus and God are Alpha and Omega in all translations, something you are desperately trying to circumnavigate.

      My reply:
      This is what you said:
      A: No, but who is the holy spirit then? Plus why not include Moses or Abraham? Clearly the name of Jesus is elevated above all in Pauls writings.
      Romans 14:11 echos Isaiahs statement in 45:23 that every knee shall bow to God. Yet we read in Philipians 2:10 that every knee shall bow to Christ and he has the highest name? (2:9). Then you have Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16-17 and Revelation 1:11,17,18.

      You were the one who cited Revelation 1:11 to prove Jesus’ deity because you though that the verse has the words ‘alpha and Omega’ in it. You got the citation wrong. The KJV does have the verse with Alpha and Omega in it but scholars have found out that it is a later interpolation and isn’t original to Revelation at this point. I have already explained all this. Why you continue pretending as if you’ve got something when in fact YOU MADE A MISTAKE and am now embarrased to admit it. The following was my original refutation to Bull’s amateurism:
      hahahaha You actually burst your own bubble and you don’t even realise it. I said, “You think that the words Alpha and Omega found in the KJV applies to Jesus? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but that designation is not original at this point in Revelation.” Notice the words “AT THIS POINT IN REVELATION”. Oh, I certainly know that elsehwere LATER in Revelations we find the expression a few times. You think I don’t know that you bloody nitwit? I told you I have read the Bible in several languages probably more times than you ever will in your whole life. You made the mistake and you know you did in appealing to a particular reference that you thought has Jesus described as Alpha and Omega. But as I have shown that particular verse that you appealed to is clearly an interpolation and there is no Alpha and Omega there specifically. You made the mistake. own up to it instead of embarrassing yourself further. Yes, Jesus was the way in his own dispensation! lol Elsewhere he is made to say that, “I am the door…anyone who enters will be saved” That means he is not the ultimate destination, but rather paves the way to the actual destination. If you wanted candy from a store you don’t stop at the door and say, “YAY, I have can get candy now!”. Rather, you have to go through the door and it is inside that you will find the candy. Jesus isn’t the candy that you’re looking for. He’s the door leading to the candy. Can you get that? It’s really very simple.

      You said:
      A: According to your logic, God who is also the beginning and end cannot be without beginning of days or end of life, which is absurd. You are not applying commonsense to some of your arguments and are making dogmatic statements without room for negotiation. Similarly, just because Melchizedek is ‘like’ the Son of God, this does not disqualify him from being such.

      My reply:
      This is how Christians speak when it comes to theological doctrines. They speak gibberish and are unabashed to hijack every word possible to suit their nonsense. If I said that John is LIKE Jesus that necessarily implies that HE IS NOT JESUS. Like in that instance denotes similitude and if the person is the subject in question then there is no similitude since he is that subject.

      You said:
      A: I never said that above quote. Melchizedek has one of Gods unique qualities and this sits well with him being the pre-incarnate Christ.

      My reply:
      Yes, you did. In a previous reply you denies belief in what I mentioned about Melchizedek. Yes, you admit that Melchizedek has God’s unique quality, but now you want to make him out to be Jesus. There isn’t a single church doctrine that says Melchizedek is God. I have never heard a Christian who worships Melchizedek. Everyone can see that this is the evangelist’s cop out. Once we show that their method of deifying Jesus contravenes their own scriptures they resort to deifying all those who carries some sort of similar trait with their God just as Jesus does(according to their estimation). I have already proven that qualities that God has are carried by others in their names. That in no way makes them God. Joshua comes from Yeshua which is the exact same name as Jesus’ original Hebrew name which means YHWH saves. Does that mean that Joshua was YHWH who saves? No Trinitarian believes that, yet Bull**** wants us to believe that just because Melchizedek has one of God’s qualities that makes him God, specifically Jesus. We have already proven that this is impossible since he is described as one who is LIKE the son of God hence making him NOT the son of God. There is no room for Bull****’s nonsense semantics.

      You said:
      A: According to Roman Catholic theology the first Christian community to emerge apart from their own (beginning in 30AD) was the Greek Orthodox church in 1054. The visable church at Muhammads time was the Catholic Church which later split into the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) Churches. So you could say Waraqa was almost certainly Catholic. In this light is it interesting that Muhammad taught Roman Catholic theology, namely the immaculate conception (of Mary).

      My reply:
      That is false Bull****. You have no clue about Christian history. Prior to the schism between the western and eastern blocks of the Christian communities due to papacy struggles, other Christian communities emerged such as Arianism, Sebellianism, Coptic Christianity, Ethiopic Church(to which the Negus belonged who gave sanctuary to Muslims and became one himself). There were numerous sects and denominations of Christianity before and during the time of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. The Catholic encyclopedia specifically denies any presence in Arabia during the time of Muhammad s.a.w. as it says:
      “The Hijaz [Arabian peninsula] had not been touched by Christian preaching. Hence organisation of the Christian church was neither to be expected nor found.” (New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1, pp. 721-722)
      Richard Bell says something similar:
      “…in spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of Ka’aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the near neighbourhood of Makkah or even of Madina.” (Bell, R. (1968). The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, The Gunning Lectures Edinburgh University, 1925. London: Frank Cass and Company Limited. pp.42)
      There isn’t any evidence to put Waraqa as a Catholic. You have miserably failed again and clearly showed your ignorance of Church history. You then stupidly said, “In this light is it interesting that Muhammad taught Roman Catholic theology, namely the immaculate conception (of Mary).” Muslims believe that everyone is IMMACULATELY conceived. Every person is conceived pure and sinless in standard Islamic theology, not just Mary. Talk about being intellectally bankrupt.

      You said:
      A: Yes. But there is a distinction. Moses did not receive the Law in the first revelation. The receiving of the Law was witnessed. Not so for the Quran.
      Also, read Deuteronomy 4:32-35. This shows that the signs were powerful and were a witness that God was with the Israelites. Not so for Islam and Muhammad. The miracles you quote are in my opinion insignificant compared to the Glory of God revealed to Israel.

      My reply:
      Exodus 19:3 tells of Moses who went to Mount Sinai to receive the first words of the Law. He went up and received them ALONE. Nobody followed him and witnessed what He experienced. We have plenty of examples of Daniel receiving revelation alone, and how does that disqualify his prophethood exactly? You mentioned Deuteronomy 4:33 which says, “Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived?” This is obviously referring to the incident in Exodus 3. No one else except Moses was present at the burning bush. And it was not God who actually went there, but an angel as verse two clearly says. What were the miracles of John the Baptist Bull****? Mention a single one of his miracles. Can you do that? No you can’t. Yet, he is historically described by Jesus as the greatest of those born of women. Yet, he performed not a single miracle. Why speak of ancient miracles that are today historically unverifiable? You’re not proving anything anyway. The standing miracle of the Prophet Muhammad is the Qur’an which the Christian scholar A.J. Arberry himself says:
      “I do not doubt at all that the Koran was a supernatural production, in that it bears all marks of being the discourse of exaltation.” (Arberry, A.J. (1953). The Holy Qur’an: An Introduction with Selections. London. pp. 31)

      You said:
      A: Go ask the Rabbis, who ‘support’ your theology, whose son was supposed to be sacrificed by Abraham and who his real wife was. I’m sure you know a lot more than me on this topic. You tell me.
      Let’s see what a Rabbi says about Islam:

      Was Hagar Abraham’s wife? Yes, I have proven this here:
      http://unveiling-christianity......the-bible/

      You said:
      A: There is a hard fact. It’s called a letter sitting in a museum somewhere. You don’t seem to need facts when making conclusions anyway.

      My reply:
      Produce the name of the letter and the museum that keeps it. Better yet, produce the letter itself so we can all read it. Prove that the letter historically connects Polycarp to Iranaeus and the former to the disciple John and that he actually wrote the last of the four canonical gospels. Rather, I have proven that scholars such as Raymond Brown have said that 95% of scholarship today agree that the evangelists(authors of the gospels) were NOT eyewitnesses to the events. You stand alone in your conjectures and errors and your own Christian scholars refute you.

      You said:
      A: No, Your “gospel” contradicts Jesus. On the most important points, the crucifixion, atonement and resurrection, you and Islam disagree with the Gospels and Paul who agree with each other. Paul was with the early church and was in unison with them.

      My reply:
      We have illustrated that Paul diverges from Jesus’ original teachings in so many ways.
      http://unveiling-christianity......f-tarsus2/
      http://unveiling-christianity......f-tarsus1/

      You have been refuted on every single point. You know that Christianity fails when it is critically scrutinised. Wake up and smell the folly of Christianity and come back to the righteous and correct path of Islam that is ordained by your Creator Allah s.w.t.

  52. Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

    MRK & IBN ANWAR, GOD IS INDEED EVERY WHERE

    I can see that the both of you have a very limited capacity to reason. You evaluate God in terms of TIME, SPACE and ORDINARY EFFECT. Like I once said here, the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit or of God is not physical but spiritual. God is not physically inside anything (the Devil inclusive) But spiritually, God or Holy Spirit is everywhere.

    The question is: as what is the spirit in where it is? Is it as “inspirator” ( as it exists in pious Christians ) or as the soul ( as it exists in Jesus Christ ) or just as the unrestricted spiritual existence of God ( as it exist everywhere including inside the Satan or even the worst thing you can imagine ).

    No condition, bad or good, can limit the spiritual presence of God. So, you need to get this clear. Omnipresence (like omniscience, omnipotent, and Omni…..) is not subject to physics or any scientific law. You can’t use the mundane scientific concept of time, form and space to describe the existence of God in whatever state. His existence is not a function of time and space
    There is that simplistic logic that if the Holy Spirit is omnipresent then, like you reasoned, it should be inside the Satan as well; and if the Holy Spirit is inside the Satan, it should be able to change the Satan. This is laughably interesting! The fact is that God has not failed to change the Satan because of space (distance). Distance or proximity does not matter to God. If God is not capable ( astagafirullah ) of changing the Satan from his ‘distant’ Kursiyin, He can’t do it by coming closer and vice versa.

    The Holy Spirit is not inside the Satan as an “ inspirator” since Satan is not a child of God, but as unrestricted spiritual existence of God that does not respect time, space, form or condition ( like smells, najas, and any worst thing you can think about ). Do you thing every condition is so even with regards to God? A terribly hot environment would be equally too hot for God to survive in? You thing a rotten egg would indeed be rotten as it relate to God? Satan who is indeed Satan with regards to human beings would also be Satan with regards to the existence of God etc etc? It is not so Mr. Anwar! What is a smelly toilet in relation to human beings would react as the best abode imaginable, with regards to God.

    To use an Islamic example, there is that Hadith that says the smells that come out of the mouth of he that fasts ( like in the Holy Month of Ramadan etc ) are like a very fine perfumes as they relate to God. So, when the perceiver changes, the perception likewise changes especially if He is Divine. So, stop limiting your thinking within the confine of time and space!

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Nur El-Masih Ben Haq. You are wasting everyone’s time with your nonsense double speak. Explain to me in terms that are discernible to the human brain what you mean by God is everywhere. What does the word everywhere mean in the English language? If God is a physical entity, yet invisible to our sight then what does it mean to say that He is literally everywhere? In another reply you said that he is not physically everywhere, but is rather spiritually everywhere. Are you then suggesting that God is not a physical being? Okay, let us say that He is nothing but some sort of Spirit without any particular form. The question remains. What in the world does it mean to say that He is spiritually everywhere? If you are shitting on the toilet is your God spiritually present under your anus and the smelly and dirty excrement that oozes out of it? When you have sex with your wife or your prostitute like Jimmy Swaggart did is God there spiritually beside your genitalia? Be honest to yourself and realise that you have reduced God to a hinduistic pagan entity that is akin to pantheism. If God is literlly everywhere then scriptural verses that speaks about God dwelling in the believer(Christian) are redundant and thus stupid. Why bother saying that He is in any particular location or place when you say that He is simply everywhere. The Christian is at a complete loss as o what it means to say God is literally everywhere. It is because they have borrowed a pagan concept without first carefully considering the implications thereby.

  53. Ibn Anwar says:

    Nur el Masih Ben Haq said
    July 23, 2011 at 4:45 am e

    You said:
    “The above is sheer absurdity veiled in nonsense jargon. He is trying to say that you can’t quantify God mathematically(with numbers), yet he quantifies God with the number THREE.”
    between saying that something as personified or expressed itself in three ways and saying that it is three. God in the Bible (and you have copied too into your Qur’an without knowing the implication) uses both the words ‘WE” and “I.” He uses “We” to express his
    I say:
    Can you quote where ever Christians or the Bible claims that God is three? There is difference unlimitedness and “I.” to express his ONEness in purpose and spirit.

    But to say that Allah is mathematically one (By saying don’t say three … Allah is one..) is to evaluate God in terms of time and space, which is very intellectually anachronistic because God existed even before the creation of time and space. In fact, being physically quantifiable is a weakness because it is an evidence of being subject to time and space. May Allah give you wisdom.

    My reply:
    More nonsense from nur el Dajjal Ben Kadhhdhab. The Qur’an does not say that God is mathematically one you ignorant fool. The Qur’an stresses the fact that God is ONLY ONE. This is also stressed by deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29, John 17:3 etc. The number ONE is in what we today called mathematics. So to say that God is not mathematically one is to create nonsense which isn’t surprising since your head is so full of it. This uneducated person wants me to produce some examples where God is described as THREE by Christians. Let’s do so.
    “The doctrine says in sum that the one God exists in three distinct and coequal persons– Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Davis, S. T. (2003). Perichoretic Monotheism: A Defense of a Social Theory of the Trinity. In Melville Y. Stewart, The Trinity: East/West Dialogue. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 36)
    “De Regnon drew a sharp distinction between the approaches to the Trinity which emphasize the THREENESS of the Godhead, and those which emphasize its unity.” (McGrath, A. E. (2011). Christian Theology: An Introduction. England: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 250)

    Basil of Caesarea contended that the distinctiveness of the three persons can be understood as the Father is distinguished by Fatherhood, the son by Sonship and the Spirit by its ability to sanctify. (Ibid.) This means that the Son is never the Father and never the Spirit. There is but ONE Fatherhood, ONE sonship and ONE Spirit that sancitifies. That is quantifiable, hence the resulting THREE persons. The THREE can never be four, five, or two. It is ever THREE, no less and no more. Nur el Dajjal Ben Kadhhdhab’s attempt to rebuke us backfires and he is rebuked instead.

  54. The Bull says:

    Jeremiah 23:23: “[Am] I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?”
    Jer 23:24: “Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.”
    For God to be Omnipitent he must also be Omnipresent otherwise he doesn’t know what’s going on and can’t act immediately. Well done brother Nur el Masih Ben Haq!
    Our God is greater!
    The Bible vs Ibn Anwar. The Bible wins again.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Well done brother Nur el masih Ben haq? How deluded are the Trinitarian Christians that they can’t even see how they have terribly lost and how blasphemous their beliefs are. the Bull agrees with Nur el masih Ben Haqq which means that his “god” resides in his shit since “He” is everywhere. Does the Bible really truly and unequivocally support you the Bull? Not at all. Let’s have a look at the following verse which contradicts your notion:
      “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27)

      “But will God really dwell on earth with men? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!” (1 Chronicles 6:18)

      “But who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? Who then am I to build a temple for him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before him?” (2 Chronicles 2:6)

      Unveiling Christians vs The Bull, Dhulm el-Dajjal ben Kaddhab and the Bible. Unveiling Christianity wins yet again.

  55. The Bull says:

    Psalm 139:7 “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?”
    Psa 139:8 “If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].”
    Psa 139:9 “[If] I take the wings of the morning, [and] dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
    Psa 139:10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

    Proverbs 15:3 “The eyes of the LORD [are] in every place, beholding the evil and the good.”

    Like Einsteins theory of relativity you have to leave this narrow 1 + 1 Newtonian physics mentality sometimes. Applying your logic to the above verse, Gods eyes would thus be in your pea soup. You need to open up you thinking and stop limiting God. Ever thought that his presence is not just limited to one dimension?
    Again the Bible and logic have you beat.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      What you must realise The Bull is that The Psalms is one of the wisdom literature and makes excessive use of poetic devices and language. The four verses that you have cited does not in any way prove that God exists everywhere literally. The ‘presence’ which is mentioned in verse seven could well be in reference to His metaphorical presence in the sense that He knows and sees all. If one posits that God is all knowing and His knowledge extends infinitely then it is not at all wrong to say that His presence is everywhere. The presence is not that of his actual being but rather His transcendent and supreme knowledge. If we were to concede the point to you then verse eight says that ‘if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there]’. Are you then telling us that God is also literally in hell? Verse ten says that His right hand shall hold him. Are you trying to suggest that God’s right hand is everywhere? How many hands does He have? What do you mean by hand? Is this hand a literal hand? If it is a literal hand does it then have fingers? How long is the hand? Is it a hairy or non-hairy hand? Can you not see the silliness in interpreting these words literally? Going back to verse seven. It speaks one one person who is asking where he can free from God’s presence? One can easily interpret this to mean that God’s presence FOLLOWS HIM wherever He goes. Hence, even if we were to grant that the verse should be taken literally for the sake of argument it does not amount to a proof text for the idea that God is literally everywhere. All the verses show is that God is ever present with that man. That is all. Good try, but you have failed again as you have failed every single time you tried to disprove Unveiling Christianity.

      Let’s have a look at Proverbs 15:3 which says: ““The eyes of the LORD [are] in every place, beholding the evil and the good.”

      The Bull then says that, “Applying your logic to the above verse, Gods eyes would thus be in your pea soup”. Notice that he wouldn’t say that God’s eyes would thus be in your excrement/dung. It is clear he is averse to the very notion. He said, “Ever thought that his presence is not just limited to one dimension?”. Well, if God exists everywhere as you and your uneducated friend Nur el-Dajjal are trying to establish then that would mean that if there were ten dimensions then He would be in every single one of them and in every single part and section of each dimension. If there is but one location or place where His presence does not encompass then He IS NOT everywhere. The Bull asks me to leave “this narrow 1+1 Newtonian physics mentality” and opt for Einstein’s theory of relativity instead. Neither of them have any bearing on our discussion! lol. The apotheosis of his ignorance is thinking that using Newton and Einstein’s names will give weight to his nonsense. You need to leave your 1st grade language comprehension and move on to a mastery and holistic understanding of language The Bull. Do not hijack words and introduce new meanings to them. Enough with the Trinitarian semantics jugglery and stick to sound reason. Proverbs 15:3 is clearly not conveying the notion that God has eyes like you and I. The eyes there is symbolic of sight and vision. A store manager with a store that is equipped with dozens of CCTVs can correctly say, “I have eyes everywhere”. No one will imagine that he’s claiming that his eyes are literally everywhere. Rather, it would be understood that his vision with the assistance of cameras extends everywhere(within the sore). Now I am not suggesting that God uses cameras to keep an eye on us. Rather, His vision and sight extends infinitely everywhere and anywhere. There are plenty of verses in the Old Testament that describes God as A ROCK(“For who is God, besides the Lord? And who is a rock, besides our God?” [2 Samuel 22:32]). Surely, you don’t believe that He is literally a rock or do you? Perhaps you image of God is akin to a stone gollum? Elsewhere the OT describes Him as breathing fire. That sounds like a dragon. Is he then a dragon like stone gollum? Your ignorance of Hebraic figures of speech is not surprising. The only reasonable understanding is that God does not have to be literally present in and around you to be able to see you. Human beings can and have succeeded in defeating distance byt inventing satellites and the like. If human beings can see things from afar without having to literally be there himself why do you say that God cannot? Human beings ingenuity surpasses God’s supremacy? When will your blasphemy end The Bull? The eyes are God’s vision and it grasps everything as Proverbs 5:21 says, “For a man’s ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths.” Finally, 2 Samuel 7:22 clearly says, “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You”. The most common shared feature of all in creation is that we exist in place. Our existence depends upon time and space. Without place we do not exist. If God is truly not like us as 2 Samuel 7:22 says then it logically follows that He is NOT in time and space. If He is not in time and space that means He is not literally everywhere. Once again Unveiling Christianity has beaten The Bull’s nonsense.

      • mrk says:

        my friend ibn anwar, if he believes that jesus is a god and only spent few days “dead” then it was back home to heaven . now if god were EVERYWHERE in every atom, a few days dead means what exactly? when bulls flesh god flew back to heaven WASN’T he ALREADY there? bull is saying he was ALREADY there cause his god in flesh is everywhere . so god was eternally there all the time and yet he flew himself back to where he already was? WHAT THE….?

  56. mrk says:

    while his god is suffering in a tiny spot in israel @ the same time he will not be suffering in galilee or the other parts of the world. while his god is dead in a tomb @ the same time he is not dead in hell or heaven.

  57. Dr Mustafa says:

    GOSPEL OF JOHN, BONE AND JESUS SURVIVAL FROM THE CROSS

    Gospel of John in chapter 19 verse 36 says

    “for these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled that ‘NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN’….”

    The author of John quotes Psalms 34:19 , 20 and 21 which says

    “many are the afflictions of the righteous but the lord delivers him out of them all. HE KEEPS ALL HIS BONES NOT ONE OF THEM IS BROKEN .The lord redeems life of his servants none of those who take refuge in him will be condemned”

    These psalms verses says God keeps the life of his servants and keeps all their bones.Which means God will protect them to the extant that NOT ONLY HE WILL PROTECT THEIR LIFE BUT ALSO THEIR BONES.It does not mean God will protect their bones and not their life an absurdity

    but when we read John he quotes this verse in context of roman soldiers not breaking the bones of Jesus by which the author of John means God protected the bones of Jesus Christ but not his life !.

    It is like saying my friend met with an accident thank god he died otherwise his bone would have been broken!

    The author of John either really meant Jesus survived the cross by quoting this psalm or he is so ignorant and fool to quote this verse.

    If God did not protect the life of Jesus Christ what for did he protect his bones? I ask this to the Christians

    This means God of Bible is ignorant what to protect first !

    In today’s medical world the acronym which is followed for resuscitation priorities in the emergency ward is A.B.C.D .Which stands for

    A – maintenance of AIRWAY first , followed by
    B – maintenance of BREATHING
    C – maintenance of CIRCULATION
    D – DISABILITY measurement by various parameters
    E – EXPOSURE of the patient from head to toe for detail examination

    (sabiston textbook of surgery 18 edition 20 chapter ; bailey and love textbook of surgery 25 edition chapter 22)

    No where in the whole world bones are protected first by any Doctor .But God of Bible protects bones instead of life that to of his own son what an irony !

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      The questions are: (1) Were his bones broken? (2) Is ‘breaking bones’ an expression signifying something more implicating than the literal meaning at that time?

  58. Dr Mustafa says:

    If we read psalms 34 verses 19,20 and 21

    “many are the afflictions of the righteous but the lord delivers him out of them all. HE KEEPS ALL HIS BONES NOT ONE OF THEM IS BROKEN .The lord redeems life of his servants none of those who take refuge in him will be condemned”

    it will be clear that God not only protects the life of his servants but also protects them from least harm done to them which is said metaphorically by LORD KEEPING ALL HIS BONES

    But John quotes this when roman soldiers does not break the legs of Jesus Christ on the cross

    so now we have 4 points to note

    1)John really meant Jesus survived the cross to the extant that least harm was also not done to him by roman soldiers that they even did not break his bones

    2)If Jesus died on cross John does not know the meaning of this verse and he is quoting it wrongly

    3)If John thinks that God protected the bones of Jesus on cross and not his life he takes psalms quotation literally that God will protect the bones of his servants irrespective of life

    4)Psalms and John both are wright that God will protect bones irrespective of life then God dosent know what to protect first.

    So brother nur el masih ben haq it is either John quotes it correctly and Jesus survived the cross or he dosent know how to quote.

  59. jamesbrown says:

    Jesus chooses his disciples (Mt. 4, 9, etc.)
    (Presumably) Jesus teaches his disciples the gospel
    Jesus and the disciples, sometimes alone and sometimes together, preach the gospel in various locations (Mt. 10 and following)
    Jesus predicts his suffering, death, and resurrection (Mt. 16)
    Jesus and disciples enter Jerusalem, where Jesus suffers, dies, and resurrects (per the story) (Mt. 21 and following)

    Assuming the above chronology is correct, then the following questions are raised for discussion.

    1. What, exactly, was the gospel that Jesus and the disciples preached in Step 2? As near as I can tell, it can be boiled down to “Repent and be baptized, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” That’s not a particularly Christian message, is it? They certainly couldn’t be preaching like they did in Acts, a la “You crucified Jesus, an innocent man, so feel guilty and follow our teachings.”

    2. What were the disciples’ response to Jesus prediction of his crucifixion? They have no clue. They argue against him. They deny that such a terrible thing would ever happen. This is strong evidence that when Jesus taught his disciples the gospel, there was no mention of him dying. Otherwise, why would they be so taken off guard when Jesus brings it up on the outskirts of Jerusalem?

    • Imad says:

      Well said jamesbrown. Very valid points. In going through the gospel stories, it always struck me as so odd that the disciples seemed to be caught totally unawares by the crucifixion. It isn’t as if Jesus never spoke about it in his lifetime! He even mentioned it in his last trip to Jerusalem. It’s hard to believe that his followers simply suffered from general amnesia. This is a clear indication that the resurrection stories were grafted on to existing accounts of his life much later.
      This leads to the supposition that the gospel stories first existed in either oral or written form and later, after the Pauline letters came out with their brand of Christology, these stories were redacted by authors writing under the pen-names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. They were rather clumsily redacted, I must add.

    • rocky says:

      “jamesbrown says:
      December 8, 2011 – الخميس 14 محرم 1433 at 10:52 pm
      Jesus chooses his disciples (Mt. 4, 9, etc.)
      (Presumably) Jesus teaches his disciples the gospel
      Jesus and the disciples, sometimes alone and sometimes together, preach the gospel in various locations (Mt. 10 and following)
      Jesus predicts his suffering, death, and resurrection (Mt. 16)
      Jesus and disciples enter Jerusalem, where Jesus suffers, dies, and resurrects (per the story) (Mt. 21 and following)

      Assuming the above chronology is correct, then the following questions are raised for discussion.

      1. What, exactly, was the gospel that Jesus and the disciples preached in Step 2? As near as I can tell, it can be boiled down to “Repent and be baptized, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” That’s not a particularly Christian message, is it? They certainly couldn’t be preaching like they did in Acts, a la “You crucified Jesus, an innocent man, so feel guilty and follow our teachings.”

      2. What were the disciples’ response to Jesus prediction of his crucifixion? They have no clue. They argue against him. They deny that such a terrible thing would ever happen. This is strong evidence that when Jesus taught his disciples the gospel, there was no mention of him dying. Otherwise, why would they be so taken off guard when Jesus brings it up on the outskirts of Jerusalem?”

      the original sin infected sinners/pagans like talking about DECEPTION, but see the fact that jesus’ ENEMIES and friends HEARD him utter words “…WHY have u forsaken me”

      and peter did not, could not, accept what jesus said, that he would be delivered by the leaders of israel in the hands of the gentiles, and that he would suffer and die. so even his inner circle had a problem with nt jesus’ CLAIMS.

      christians have been trying to cover up jesus’ CLAIMS by MISINTERPRETING old testament “prophecies” for centuries, but jesus’ FAILURE sealed the deal for all of his enemies and proved thier CASE that he was a false prophet .

  60. rob says:

    “However, there was a lesson to be taught. In calling her a dog, he is simply using a term for Gentiles commonly used by Jews which referred to their failure to observe the dietary restrictions which the Jews followed. It was not a derogatory term.”

    YOU silly christian for christ. jeezuz CALLED her ILL DAUGHTER A DOG. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ILL JEWISH GIRL AND AN ILL GENTILE GIRL? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? DID YOUR god in MEAT EVER SIT ON THE SAME TABLE WITH A GENTILE AND ENJOYED A MEAL WITH one? NO, because he THOUGHT that jewish LAWS MADE him (your god in meat) a BETTER PERSON CONTRADICTING the pagan PAUL. why CALL HER ILL DAUGHTER A DOG, DID HER DAUGHTER KNOW WHAT THE heck was “dietry LAWS” ? you would THINK MERCY AND COMPASSION would KICK IN AND jesus the christ would THINK PAST “DIETRY LAWS” AND immediately feel sorry for an ILL GENTILE girl, but no, jesus the christ needs to use “dietry laws” to decide whom to help? even those who observed “dietry laws” treated him WORSER THAN A goat, atleast a goAT get better TREATMENT before it is eaten . they used the PAGANS to SCREW, BLUE AND TATOO jesus the krist, they GOVERned jesus LOL .

    THE QUESTION IS this , would the GENTILE woman who was DESPERATE , really like jesus’ UNNEIgBOURLY behaviour TOWARDS her? did she enjoy hearing that she and HER ILL DAUGHTER was LAWLESS dog?

    According to your god in meat, it isn’t what you eat that DEFILES you , but it is what you SPEAK . i disagree with your god, if god commanded you not to eat x or meat an animal meat offered to pagan gods, then your god is WRONG, what god didn’t want you to eat , you eat , so you DISOBEYED god.

    “The term used is kynarion which is not used of a wild dog but of a house dog or personal pet.”

    THE QUESTION HERE IS THIS,
    did jesus THINK THAT THE ill GENTILE DOG belonged to the children?

    `I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’

    no he DIDN’T .the dog was not FROM his house.

    it is THE WOMAN, THE DESPERATE gentile WOMAN, who is trying to make a link between herself and the CHILDREN , not jesus LOL

    “Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!”

    ” This fact is also clear from the usage here since the woman speaks of a dog that eats the crumbs from the table of the master. ”

    think about it PAGAN,

    this is what we learn from the story

    1. jesus IGNORES A desperate WOMAN LOOKING for help for her daughter “but he ANSWERED HER not a word”
    2. SHE IS CALM AND COMPOSED and tries to USE jesus’s DECIPLES AS INTERMEDIARIES
    she asked his DECIPLES to mediate on her behalf but they (deciples) follow jesus’ EXAMPLE, they ALSO ignore her

    ” SEND HER AWAY , SHE CRIETH AFTER US”

    HOW MANY times she “crieth after” the deciples to MEDIATE on her behalf? the text DOES NOT TELL US, but what we do learn from the deciples is : HOW TO IGNORE A POOR AND HELPLESS non-jewish woman who seek HELP for her ILL DAUGHTER , who according to jesus is AN ILL DOG!

    jesus ADDRESSES his DECIPLES

    `I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’

    TELL HER TO BUZZ OFF, I DON’T WANT TO HELP HER, I WANT TO HELP those who will SCREW , BLUE AND TATOO ME, they will use pontius pilate to DECIDE MY FATE. even though, according to me and paul, the JEWISH laws DON’T MAKE YOU A BETTER person, i will still help those who are obsessed with USELESS LAWS lol.

    compare jesus’ behaviour TOWARDS jairus

    THE WOMAN then BOWS down and asks jesus, like a desperate lady would ask on BEHALF of her daughter , ” PLEASE help me…”

    jesus’ is ONE OF THOSE people who would LET A gentile little girl get run OVER BY A CAR, because the gentile LITTLE DOG/BITCH, DOESN’T BELONG TO his yard.

    in todays slang what would you call a woman who behaves wrong
    a female dog i.e BITCH

    the DESPERATE WOMAN IS ON THE FLOOR BEGGIN FOR HELP, AFTER SHE IS IGNORED , SHE DESPERATELY BEGS FOR MORE HELP, BUT the UNIGEHBOURLY AND UNCOMPASSIONATE jesus the krist said /broke his SILENCE addressed her DIRECTLY

    “IT IS NOT GOOD TO TAKE THE childrens bread and to cast it to dogs”

    why isn’t it good to help a poor little girl who needs help and who has no idea what is judaism and what is gentileism?
    WHY NOT, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A N ILL GENTILE LITTLE GIRL/DOG AND JEWISH LITTLE GIRL? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? WHAT DOES AN ILL LITTLE GIRL KNOW ABOUT JUDAISM OR LAWLESS GENTILES, SHE WAS POSSESED BY EVIL AND SHE WOULD NOT KNOW ANYTHING. WHICH mother would WANT TO HEAR A STUPID RESPONSE like jesus’ RESPONSE?

    you would think that the WOMAN DEMONSTRATED HER faith by STAYING CALM AND OBSORBING all the INSULT and IGNORING ECT

    BUT ONLY WHEN SHE DESTROYS jesus in her REBUTTAL does she CHANGE jesus’ mind LOL

    “Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!”

    NOTICE that she is MAKING A LINK BETWEEN HERSELF and the children? notice that jesus did not think this? he already told her that he did not come for her but the JEWS , SO she is not , according to jesus , a dog who belongs in the childrens house

    but friends realise something, she tells jesus that she and her ILL DAUGHTER ARE dogs (any DESPERATE WOMAN WOULD DO that, considering the fact that GENTILES WERE NOT TREATED kindly in israel in jesus’ time and the woman according to matthew, said

    ” a Canaanitess, from those borders having come forth, did call to him, saying, `DEAL KINDLY with me,”

    deAL KINDLY with me… hahahaha we saw how much KINDNESS was shown to the woman by jesus and his deciples. )

    it is only after she blasts jesus, i.e THINK jesus WHEN YOU eat CRUMS NATURALLY fall unto the floor and a LOW STATUS gentile like me , UNDER THE TABLE, near THE FEET OF THE CHILDREN, WILL BENEFIT from the BITS AND PIECES

    NOTICE THAT TODAY this would be an EQUAL RIGHTS ISSUE
    jesus clearly WAS NOT FOR EQUAL RIGHTS !

    “So, in calling her a dog, Jesus is not saying that her race is inferior, but saying that as a Jew he was sent to Jews. The woman recognizes that she is a Gentile asking for a salvation from the Jewish Savior when she calls him “Son of David” (Matt 15:22).” Jesus commends her for her faith and rewards her for it, not because she is Jewish but because she has faith.”

    how much HURT did jesus CAUSE this woman when he and his deciples both IGNORED her. imagine a DOCTOR does what jesus did to a BLACK african woman. if the WOMAN DID NOT COME OUT WITH A CLEVER REFUTATION and did NOT ADMIT TO BEING A DOG, WOULD jesus the krist help her? just imagine she was on the floor and did not have a CLEVER rebutal to jesus’ STUPID response about not giving childrens bread to the gentiles, would jesus have helped her? her “faith” involved her calling herself and HER ILL daughter a dog UNDER THE TABLE. EATING OFF THE FLOOR I.E LOW STATUS, BELOW THE JEWS .NOT EQUAL IN gODS EYES.ONLY this RESPONSE TRIGGERS A CURE , BUT she did all GYMNASTICS BEFORE her clever rebuttal , but jesus couldn’t detect any “faith” ? wha t the?

    if jesus’ had used his COMMON SENSE may be he would have REALISED that his stupid response

    `It is not good to take the children’s bread, and to cast to the little dogs.’

    WAS AMUNITION FOR THE non -jewish WOMAN?

    YOU KNOW the woman WAS CALM AND THINKING gentile, UNLIKE your god in meat who let his anger take over when he observed how DESPERATE THE LADY was getting. i am sure he was getting angry when she was bowing LIKE A DOG AND continuosly kept on bothering him and his deciples.

    ” Thus demonstrating that what matters is faith not race. Notice also that Jesus doesn’t do what the disciples propose that he do: “Send her away.” No, he grants her what she asks in faith.”

    maybe after realising that jesus was CORNERED by a gentile woman and realising that jesus had no response to a desperate women who refuted him, jesus FELT GUILTY for his sins OF ignoring the gentile woman and then CHANGED his mind. i’m saying that the gentile woman MANAGED TO CHANGE your god in meat MIND. talking about “faith” did the DECIPLES get nailed along side jesus? did the cured and ill and ressurected protest against jewish crowds who wanted jesus’ meat nailed to a stick? WHAT WAS HER FAITH? ar se hole?

    her FAITH IN believing that she and her ill DAUGHTER AND HER PEOPLE are DOGS ?jesus was PLEASED TO HEAR that she BELIEVED what jesus SAID ABOUT her and her PEOPLE? WHAT IF she called jesus a dog? what if she laughed and poked fun at jesus while he was bleeding on the cross?

    those who live by insults shall die by insults

    what were the romans doing to jesus when they were wipping him?

  61. rob says:

    “commonly used by Jews which referred to their failure to observe the dietary restrictions which the Jews followed.”

    IT pisses me off HOW THESE STUPID b***ards escuse any crime of thier god in meat. i say IT again these people are stupid b****rds who escuse any crime of thier god in meat. we know dogs eat any s hit, we know that they don’t know right from wrong, we know that. they eat any s hit and jesus reduces the lady to a LAWLESS animal.
    TODAY we have all hygenic equipment to clean up dogs, but how well was israel doing with house dogs ?

    “Well now, This sounds even more disgusting. What we have here is that the gentile is nothing more than an animal. But look at the content of Yeshu speaking this. He says it in a derogatory manner, as you, the woman do not know what is the truth, you are like an animal who doesn’t know any better. ”

    “If Jesus intentionally meant “little dogs” (or puppies) rather than “dogs” then this might serve to soften the insult (even if only a little) by turning it from a direct insult to condescension. Yet, as Burkhill points out, calling someone in English a “little bitch” is no more comforting that the more direct “bitch.” ”

    “We know from OT precedence that dog was a pejorative insult (1 Sam. 17:43 and 2 Kings 8:13). Also Matthew uses the word “dogs” to contrast those who do not appreciate what is holy from those who do (7:6). We do know that first-century Jews (the “children” in this passage) referred to the pagans as dogs because of their failure to observe ritual purity laws (Downing, 1992: 137).”

    “An animal doesn’t have free will and that is what separates man from the animal kingdom. To equate a people to an animal is saying that they are less than human, without the Divine soul. If a person ‘cast it to the dogs’ it is a “treatment” of the recipient of the food that is telling here. When a person puts it this way it infers a disgust to something that is beneath the person, that the recipient doesn’t warrant any consideration.

    What we find here is a teaching that it is allowable to insult a person. Yeshu insults the woman and she “accepts” the insult and Then Yeshu praises her. ( I looked up the passage). So Yeshu is teaching that it is allowable to insult a person so that the person will accept it and that is what is considered faithful. ”

    “Not to wrong the stranger in speech (Shemot Exodus 22:20) ”

    OKAY, so WHY DID THE lady start off with “DEAL KINDLY WITH ME…” and how much KINDNESS did she receive from jesus and his deciples LOL? LOL the god in meat went against his own LAWS LOL LOL LOL
    ONLY after the lady REFUTES him, he changes his mind LOL

    DO you see friends that the LADY used jesus reasoning AGAINST him? she came back with a KO

    PUNCH

    the patern

    1. refusal + no answer
    2. deciple refusal
    3 begs
    4. REFUSAL . told her ” IT IS NO GOOD ( i.e it is BAD) to give the childrens bread to your ILL GENTILE LAWless DOG /bitch DAUGHTER

    this is WHAT YOU CALL KINDNESS?

    marks version

    “LET THE CHILDREN FIRST BE fed, it isn’t GOOD to take the childrens bread and cast it to the dogs”

    let your ILL lawLESS liTTLE daughter SUFFER , THE CHILDREN HAVE MORE PRIORITY OVER YOUR ILL LAWLESS LITTLE DOG/DAUGHTER!

    EQUAL RIGHTS? HAHAHA
    if 1 doctor can look after several gentile , , jewish , african children , then isn’t it equal rights?

    notice how matthew OMITS the words “LET THE CHILDREN FIRST BE FED” AND HAS IT LIKE , I AM SENT ONLY TO THE JEWS
    AND “IT IS NOT GOOD TO TAKE THE CHILDRENS BREAD AND CAST IT TO YOUR LITTLE ILL DAUGHTER “

  62. Imad says:

    Assalaamalaikum

    I have a question regarding Matthew 27: 3-10.

    A lot of people claim that it was common practice back then to quote one prophet when relating more than one prophecy. So in the above example although the passage in question is from Zechariah not Jeremiah it seems to have elements of both prophets. So whereas Zechariah mentions the pieces of silver Jeremiah mentions the potter’s field. Jeremiah is quoted because he happens to be the more famous of the two. Moreover it is claimed that Jeremiah mentions 17 shekels which approximates to 30 pieces of silver so essentially both prophecies allude to the same event.
    Anyway this is the Christian apologists’ stance on this issue. Can Ibn Anwar or one of the other knowledgeable brothers respond to this please?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      I have already explained this in the article in the following:
      Prof. Raymond E. Brown in his volume 1 or his 2 volume work on the crucifixion says about this confusion, “That conglomeration of words cited by Matt exists nowhere in the standard OT.” [5] The same is noted by Geza Vermes that, “The quotation is said to be of Jeremiah, but it is invented or is more exactly a garbled mixture of Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 18-2-3, 36:6-15.” [6] In the passage in Matthew Judas’ manner of death is mentioned, that is, he hanged himself. Acts 1:18-20 relates the same incident, but the details differ greatly,
      -end of quote-
      The Christian apologist’s explanation is related to the phenomenon called ‘gezera shawah’ which I have already explored here http://unveiling-christianity......-an-error/

      If what we see in Matthew 27 is indeed ‘gezera shawah’ one would expect a knowledgeable expert in Judaic studies, Geza Vermes to actually mention it, but he did not. Rather, he says that it is “invented” or a “garbled mixture”. Raymond Brown who is hailed as the pre-eminent scholar of the new testament specifically says that it does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament.

  63. robert says:

    any honest person can see that jesus was not for “equal rights” any honest person can see that jesus’ treatment of the gentile woman was UNKIND, uneighbourly and UNFAIR. read post 61 and 60
    his behaviour towards the gentile woman reminds me of the behaviour of modern day israelis with black hats . for example

    • robert says:

      to one extent it is understable that dirty christian polythiests are defiling israel with other gods not known to the jews, but the gentile woman jesus mistreated was not preaching paganism to jesus, she was desperately looking for little assistance for her ill gentile little daughter.

      • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

        The fact is that you people CAN’T debate freely – you resort to insult and you CAN’T bear with a counter-insult because your faith is vulnerable. I challenge any Muslim here to avoid insult and let us purely debate!! YOU CAN’T!!!!

        • Ibn Anwar says:

          Why are you complaining and retaliating(give “counter-insult”)? You are obliged to bless us!
          bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:28)
          Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. (Romans 12:14)
          Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. (1 Peter 3:9)

        • Imad says:

          We already have, several times, and have shut your lying mouth more than once. Your shameless ranting about our “not willing to debate” fools no one. Sounds like you’re trying to convince yourself rather than other people.

      • robert says:

        nur , don’t be a dirty hypocrite . we all know how you evil christian rejoice and LAUGH when you hear the muhammad (pbuh) called pedo, murderer, killer rapist ect ect ect. we know you dirty hypocrites and how you rejoice . name me a time when a lady approached muhmmad , begged him and his companions , and then muhammad told her , ” i am only for The arabs” “it is not good to give MEDICATION to your LAWLESS gentile DAUGHTER”

  64. robert says:

    “you resort to insult and you CAN’T bear with a counter-insult because your faith is vulnerable”

    YOU should turn the other cheek and not run away like jesus. jesus preached but DID NOT PRACTICE.

  65. robert says:

    its funny that christians poke fun at the ayah which says that muslims are the best of people because they….

    but when we point out to them that the apostles and the brethrens of jeszuz did not like that peter EAT WITH uncircumcised , christians don’t care. peter in reply cannot think of ONE EXAMPLE WHERE jeszuz had a mEAL with gentiles ON THE SAME table, rather he has a vision thaT no one else sees, but note something brethren, for apostles and brethrens it was IMPORTANT to keep jewish rituals and LAWS, but if you are a pauline today, you should ask, “how does rituals and laws make you better than the gentiles”

  66. rocky says:

    12 And having gone forth they were preaching that men might reform, 13 and many demons they were casting out, and they were anointing with oil many infirm, and they were healing them.

    christians, according to jesus, john the baptist was the greatest man alive. there is absolutely no report of the man performing any miracles yet according to jesus ,john was the greatest man alive. johns repentance method involved dunking the sinner into water.
    now when the deciples in mark 6 went out doing x, y z , how exactly did they reform people , cast out demons, annoint with oil ect? the blood of god idea wasn’t even known to them . the crucifixion wasn’t even known WHEN THEY WERE DOING THESE GOOD DEEDSand according to the sources we have about 1st century judaism , some sects of judaism rejected the blood sacrifice of the temple, believing god is omnipotent and merciful, and that he could forgive sins without the shedding of animal blood.

    what you have to do christians is interpret the DECIPLES DEEDS IN Light of 1ST CENTURY judaisms .

    christians look @ this quote:

    Jesus was a human being, supposedly murdered by the Romans. A
    murder is not a sacrifice. A human being is not a kosher animal (a lamb is).

    A human being is certainly Not one of the “clean animals”. Even more so considering man is said to be born with original sin. We can say that an animal is born “without” sin, simply because he has no free will and is unable to choose between one and the other. Human beings, on the other hand, do not have this option.

    So, logically, man cannot offer himself as any sin or redemptive
    sacrifice. He doesn’t fulfill the requirements and hence, Yeshu could
    not fulfill the Torah as Xtian assert.

    .

    now think about it christians, do you really think that the deciples would switch from salvation version 1 (mark 6) to salvation version 2 i.e blood of god?
    I Know that you ppl are READY to swallow the idea that human flesh of jesus was sinless, but how easy would it have been to sell this idea to the jews whom the DECIPLES had contact with in mark 6:12?

  67. rocky says:

    when we tell the christians that the torah says that noah would save him self with his righteousness , the christians reduce it to “punishment on earth” he saved himself from

    also we have this verse

    “God saw what they did; he saw that they had given up their wicked behavior. So he changed his mind and did not punish them as he had said he would.” (Jonah 3: 1-10)

    now what is God doing with the people who were DROWNED in the flood? wasn’t the PUNISHMENT extended and taken into hell? weren’t their SUFFERINGS PRO LONGED for eternity?

    doesn’t death mean SEPERATION from God? the jews in jonah SAVED themselves from DEATH by changing thier ways, not changing thier ways through jesus’ dead flesh and blood, but changing thier ways through thier own heart /mind and flesh.

    God said that noahs RIGHTEOUSNESS SAVED him from DEATH/DOOM.

    Here is the thing

    jesus ‘ suffered for only six hours . six hours of suffering + death the pagan polythiestic triplet worshippers convert it to ETERNITY IN HELL FIRE.

    1. if millions of people go to hell for ETERNITY and the ones who were DROWNED included in the millions , then how does 6 hours of WORLDLY PUNISHMENT + death = MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SUFFERING IN HELL ETERNALLY? does that make sense?

    how is jesus’ punishment EQUIVALLENT to the punishment of millions in hell?

    2. how the hell does a God feel the pains of hell fire when he retains his POWERS ? how does FIRE of hell AFFECT the one who created the fires of hell? is eternal suffering in hell PART of God now? the christian will say no and say that it was the HUMAN person of jesus who suffered.

    3.lets use the christians logic. jesus WORLDLY punishment is CONVERTED to infinite punishment, lets APPLY TO the ONES WHO DROWNED

    4. christians own logic says that the ones who drowned SUFFERED MUCH MORE THAN jesus and ETERNALLY seperated from GOD

    5. SO NOAH saved himself from ETERNAL SEPERATION AND ETERNAL HELL FIRE.

    so NOAHS trust in God /deeds done the job for him

  68. rocky says:

    lets assume for a moment

    on monday, jew worshipping christian goes into a cinema and blows peoples brains out

    on tuesday sam shamoun hangs out in gay bars

    GOD IS ABOUT the leash his punishment on two pagans 1. shamoun 2. the guy who blew peoples brains out in cinema

    shamoun and the terrorist christian have an idea:

    lets QUICKLY remind god what the romans done to him and what the father did to jesus after the departure from the cross. lets quickly remind him before he makes bacon out of us. lets quickly cover ourselves and start imagining gods “sacrifice” on the cross and his “willingness” to go on the cross. lets think about how god punished himself to prevent himself from punishing us.

    god sees what he is reminded off and IMMEDITATELY cools down and gives the 2 christians roses and shamoun, who was at gay bar and terrorist who blew ppls brains out raising thier hands in church and praising thier lord for having his backside handed to him by pagan romans and celebrating all night long.

    the pagan lord of christianity has fallen deeply in love with his pocksy suicide that it has LITERALLY BLINDED him

    he is using his human DEEDS as INTERMEDIARY and is enough to make himself prevent himself from leasing out his punishment .

    do your sin and imagine and believe in how your god murdered himself to himself and then continue on your dirty sins all day long .

    continue them in thought and mind coz your god will vetoe them through his human deeds .

    the israelites thought they could buy out yhwh by offering blood sacrifices to him, the christians think they can buy out yhwh buy imagining his “sacrifice” in thier pagan brains and think it is enough.

  69. rocky says:

    so what do you do?
    you apologise to god and continue to do good deeds to mean with sincerity that u are sorry for your sin

    you cry out with tears and back up your sincerity with good deeds

    u then admiting that your sincerity and deeds R required for God to FORGIVE u? or do you use jesus “sacrifice” and MIX with your sincerity/deeds and then OFFER it o God?

    so this time DEEDS had to play a big role? but by home much PERCENT? 80 PERCENT deeds and 20 percent reminding god that he “sacrificed” himself?

    which one is IMPORTANT? which one has HIGHER status and meaning in gods eyes? how come now God has become INTERESTED DEEDS/SINCERITY when u pagans go around preaching that deeds/sincerety can not get u forgiveness?

  70. rocky says:

    here is a question to our polythiestic christian neigbours

    1. ppl REPENT insincerely

    2. did your god murder his flesh to himself for INSINCERE repentance?

    3.if he punished himself for all sins, then i guess the sin of insincere rep is included

    4. so it boils down to this. you like the hypocrtites can imagine your gods “sacrifice” to himself and cool your god down because your god saw that you thought about his flesh “sacrifice”

    5. people flash money to do sin , you flash your gods “sacrifice” to him to remind him how much he loved his action to himself that all salvation is DEPENDANT on an alledged historical event

    6. u can always remind your god “dear god, i can’t show genuine guilt or repent sincerely, and who gives a crap any way, u died for all sins, so don’t forget this and don’t forget how much u fell in love with your self sacrifice to your self that u made it more important than your existence and mercy “

  71. rocky says:

    god wrote the PERFECT and ETERNAL laws of the torah

    god knew people would break these perfect and eternal laws

    god was very angry when people broke PERFECT AND ETERNAL laws

    so he sent him self in human flesh form to “fullfill” his PERFECT AND ETERNAL laws.

    he realized how HARSH AND RITUALISTIC his PERFECT AND ETERNAL laws were when he came in his FLESH form

    so he DECIDES to abrogate his PERFECT AND ETERNAL laws EVEN though he didn’t DO THEM in his human FLESH form , but enjoyed doing them in his cosmic/spiritual form

    so he made his “sacrifice ” to himself more IMPORTANT than his PERFECT AND ETERNAL laws, because he thought by the puncturing and slashing of his flesh he was “fullfilling” his perfect and eternal laws.

    his choosen ones fell in love with the LAW SO MUCH that they have made it part of thier life and cannot LEAVE eternal and perfect laws for petty flesh “sacrifice” on the cross, because it is DEEPLY ingrained in thier minds and the christian god told them to HOLD FAST to his laws and NEVER let go.

    god comes down, experiences what he wrote for the jews thousands of years earlier, and then decides , ” nah, i don’t like these HARSH and horrible laws, i need to think of new way because my original plan/laws didn’t FIGHT OFF SIN and people with laws become greater sinners”

    this is the christian god that people go in middle east and sell to the arabs.

    and they say islam is afraid of christianity?

    and they say saudi is afraid of christianity? saudi is afraid of the blasphemous sh it u preach.

  72. rocky says:

    the ot god said to the hebrews to be DIFFERENT from the surrounding nations OVER night

    the ot god said to the hebrews NOT to worship other THAN yhwh OVER night

    the ot god told the hebrews not to do INCENT /child sacrifices to pagan gods OVER NIGHT

    if he knew that his perfect and eternal laws were going to turn the hebrews into ritual OBESSED jews why didn’t he tell them OVER NIGHT to leave them and start from the heart instead of the law?

  73. rocky says:

    i have time and time again told people that it is EASIER in not breaking rituals and IT IS EASIER BREAKING THE MORAL LAWS , THE DO’S AND DON’T OF THE TORAH.

    by thier own LOGIC they should agree that MORAL LAWS HAVE TO BE DROPPED ALSO BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO keep for the christian nations

    1. they murder , american occupation
    2. they steal
    3. they preach and then find hookers in a club , jim boy swaggy
    4. they get angry
    5. they do not turn the cheek
    6. they do many sins in thought and action

    so it is what i have been saying all along, when the christian says that all THIER deeds are menstration on cloth in gods eyes they are helping themselves prove to the world that they are infected by disease and if sin is disease they cannot RISE above it and KEEP on FIRING ” menstruration on cloth” ” original sinners” ” no deed will save you ” ” man is dirty/filthy” “man is manure” ” man has sinful nature and loves to sin”

    see, they have used these themes again and again and help the cause of sin and make man feel like ANIMAL and under developed.

    but they have the man god myth where they can shine in gods face and tell him “remember your works/deeds on a cross and remember that you gave us emotions and desires and we cannot rise above sins because ofthese components ?”

    god says,

    “your forgiven, sin some more ” lol

  74. rocky says:

    “When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it”

    this is what the christians say about the human being

    “Christians are taught they are “born sinners” and cannot help but to sin, as they are taught it is not possible for them to be perfect…”

    “DIRTY FILTHY sinners”

    now they COVER themselves with jesus’ “sacrifice” and drink his blood and eat his flesh to COMPLETELY cover themselves with their gods HUMAN DEEDS.

    it is like saying god gave up EATING for you in the saharah desert and died of HUNGER and his flesh was cooking under a hot sun

    christians would COVER themselve with this deed and say “FASTING is fullfilled ” “we don’t need to fast”

    note that to christians it doesn’t matter if there is SINCERE MUSLIM who prays to God and thanks him for LIFE and provision and sustenance?

    christian say that without thier god thrashing his FLESH / dieing of hunger in saharah desert , they are NOTHING.

    THE deed of getting his flesh thrashed ” sacrificed” to appease himself BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL OF the OTHER ACTS OF GOD

    GOD IS FIXED TO his human deeds in thier theology

    so no matter how much they REPENT, DO GOOD DEEDS, HAVE filling of holy spirit, ECT THEY cannot BEAT thier gods sacrifice to himself

    so they cover themselves with their gods foolish and pagan act

    christianity is not ABOUT BECOMING good it is about DEPENDING on a god who worships his own foolish acts in human form.

    ALLAH can CAUSE tawfeeq to settle in the heart and the part of the human which wants to sin loses ability to sin because of the tawfeeq from Allah.

  75. rocky says:

    we know that OBEDIANCE/TRUST/FAITH in God SAVED people from doom/destruction

    example noah . ppl in the book of joel. and many more

    but do the words ” to save ” “save” “saviour” “salvation” “saving”

    in HEBREW UNDERSTOOD to mean that OBEDIANCE SAVED THE OBJECTS OR GOD SAVED THE OBJECTS BECAUSE OF THIER OBEDIANCE?

    THE jews say that the WORDS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN USED IN THE TORAH TO MEAN THAT God SAVED FROM PHYSICAL DANGER /FIGHTING ENEMIES PHYSICALLY/combat

    RESCUING PEOPLE THROUGH COMBAT . VIOLENCE WAS INVOLVED TO SAVE, not from sin , but from enemies.

    WHEN HAS THE TORAH EVER UNDERSTOOD THE WORDS

    ” to save ” “save” “saviour” “salvation” “saving”

    LIKE THIS

    “god created 100 % flesh, hid in it, and then got it BEATEN up to SAVE from sin in SPIRITUAL way”

    “god sacrificing himself to himself saved from all sins”

    the idea of “spiritual saviour god ” from sin, does not EXIST in the torah. yes ” physical saving god” from DANGER DOES EXIST in the torah.

    a god beating himself up to save from sin does not EXIST in the torah

    this greek pagan nonsence was good for pagan greeks who believed that it was good for gods to get DEFEATED

    “If you were looking to invent a religious myth about the savior, it doesn’t make sense to try and postulate one that physically saved the jewish people because it would obviously be false to anyone who had eyes. However, postulate a savior in the form of sacrificing himself universally, and you have an indefeasible myth that can gain a lot of traction for a people that feel persecuted and targeted.”

    it all makes sence why christianity is a PAGAN religion and better fits PAGAN ideas than jewish.

  76. rocky says:

    christians ALWAYS have NEW interpretations of who DIED on the cross and how thier pagan god was a PART of it

    when a soldier says that he will GIVE UP his life for children in a hospital we know what “give up ” means

    the man will leave his flesh behind , his KNOWLEDGE of his enviorment and his STRENGTH

    he will give it all up

    now christians have a diy god

    for example

    i asked

    “Did jesus’ “spirtually” or person/soul CONTAIN omnipotence and omnipotence ? did those attributes ABANDON /leave jesus?”

    ” was jesus’ 100 PERCENT human nature in SHEOL? Or was he 100 % human and 100 percent god even in sheol? Did he become a marcionite in sheol? If jesus’ human person was in sheol then where was his divine person? Was his divine person omnipresent i.e EVERYWHERE”

    i was just trying to UNDERSTAND what the pagan christian god GAVE UP for humanity

    “So while human jesus was in sheol the 3 persons were 3 omnipresents and 3 omniscients . now try to understand that how in hell was god punishing himself when in reallity he didn’t GIVE up jack? If he did, then he was then he should have been released from his powers like a battery is and would be in sheol ROBBED of his attributes . only when your god is ROBBED OF his attributes can he make SATISFACTION to divine justice or to the justice his father HAD SET UP in the beginning .”

    “jesus = HUMAN being . not 80 % human being 100 % human being

    jesus = diety. 100 % diety. the diety = spirit dwelling in 100% human body

    so you have 2 SEPERATE ITEMS

    human = soul/mind , spirit BODY

    god = SPIRIT

    2 SEPERATE items fixed together in christian religion.

    did your god SEPARATE* himself/his spirit from his flesh BODY?
    *was this god who seperated himself OMNIPRESENT?

    DID your god SEPERATE jesus 100 % CREATED soul/spirit
    From jesus created FLESH body?

    Did god SEPARATE himself from himself and have power DRAIN/LOSS?”

    “you believe jesus GAVE up his attributes. may i ask to whom? could they have been transferred to another person and made him a god? when jesus gave up his attributes do they float in space INACTIVE? so its like an ON and off thing isn’t it? can jesus’ attributes he gave up turn on without notifying jesus that they have switched on? ”

    christian DO NOT EXPLAIN HOW ALL POWERFUL AND ALL KNOWING GOD was INVOLVED in jesus’ HUMAN sacrifice.

    one christian said,

    oliver :

    “To give them up means not to use them; that’s all. I had better make it clear that this is my interpretation.”

    see ? his own INTERPRETATION

    if u say GOD IS ALL KNOWING, then hOW can be at A point in time NOT all knowing because he DECIDED not to use his ALL knowing? what kind of language is this? IF ALL KNOWING IS PART OF HIS NATURE then how could he not USE it?

    i gave up on my glasses, but if glasses are permanently ATTACHED to my face , how in the hell can i give them up? do u believe that power and all knowledge is not 100 percent PART of God?

    you’re telling me that god did a DIFFICULT A LEVEL exam and turned off his all knowledge before he did it, but AT THE SAME time you believe all knowledge is PART of him.

    u say god can STOP USING his POWERS, does that mean if all 3 persons in the trinity simultaneously STOPPED using thier powers man could trump them?

    NOTICE WHAT IS happending to christian god? when he is NOT USING his powers WHAT is he? POWERLESS , THEN powerless becomes FIXED to christian gods pagan body and is with him ETERNALLY because using his powers and not using them IS PART OF him which means it MUST HAVE been part of him eternally

    christianity is a disgusting pagan diy god religion

  77. rocky says:

    imagine you KNOW nothing about the pagan religion of christianity

    imagine you don’t know about the claim that before the christian god could forgive/have mercy he had to create 100 % flesh and get it beaten the hell out of before he could do those things.

    imagine you don’t know that the christian god had to create his meat PUPPET , punish it and then give his forgiveness.

    now lets look @ this verse from the torah

    I will take you from the nations, and gather you
    from all the countries, and bring you into your own
    land. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you
    shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and
    from all your idols I will cleanse you. A NEW HEART I
    will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you;
    and I will remove from your body the heart of
    stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my
    spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes
    and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you
    shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors;
    and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.
    (Ezek 36:24-28)

    DO YOU ALL SEE THAT? according to the verse, god said he would GIVE A NEW HEART? no mention of having himself murdered before he gives a new HEART , he said he WILL replace the old heart with a new one and the new one would do his commands in mouth and action.

    just imagine u don’t know anything about the christian bs about ” holy spirit” and “god had to murder himself before he could release from punishment” imagine u don’t know this, how much can u DERIVE the christian PAGAN meaningless “sacrifice” from ezek 36-24-28?

  78. rocky says:

    exposing christians PATHETIC ignorance

    quote:

    Originally Posted by Hawkeye

    This Christian does not do good so that they get a reward

    quote:

    The right attitude is to do good to please God and to prove one’s obedience but there is nothing wrong in desiring the reward of the next world and working with the purpose of achieving success in the Hereafter. In fact Jesus plainly tells his followers in Matthew6 that instead of seeking the reward of this world that will ultimately vanish, to rather “store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”. He further tells them that if they do not pray, fast or give to charity with the right attitude, then “you will have no reward from your Father in heaven” and that their works will remain in this passing world and vanish.

    The Quran presents the same principle that those who do “good” with the wrong attitude and without the perspective of the Hereafter then their good deeds, which they confined to this world and for the achievement of their wordly desires, will therefore have no weight ie worthless in the Hereafter and will ultimately vanish like ashes scattered by the winds 14:18,24:39-40,18:105″Therefore their works are vain, and on the Day of Resurrection We assign no weight to them”. Their good deeds are nullified in the Hereafter and will only be restrained to this passing world 18:45″like water which We send down from the cloud so the herbage of the earth becomes tangled on account of it, then it becomes dry broken into pieces which the winds scatter” because the Quran repeatedly says that Allah never lets good deeds remain unrewarded 17:18,11:15-16″Whoever desires this world’s life and its finery, We will pay them in full their deeds therein, and they shall not be made to suffer loss in respect of them. These are they for whom there is nothing but fire in the hereafter, and what they wrought in it shall go for nothing, and vain is what they do”. This is exactly as Jesus said when he declared about those who pray, fast or give to charity only to be seen by men that they will have no reward in the Hereafter and that they will be paid in full in this world only “Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full”.

    end quote

  79. rocky says:

    more christian bs:

    Originally Posted by Hawkeye
    In Q3.132 we have the idea of ‘earning’ forgiveness by a kind of competition in goodness

    Besides the fact that 3:132 does not say the above but rather to show obedience to God and is messenger, as the nations of all times were enjoined, the verse i quoted was 3:134 speaking of restraining one’s anger in society and pardonning men

    Originally Posted by Hawkeye
    In Q4:147 is seems that one does not have to be a Muslim to obtain God’s mercy – so what is the advantage?

    Besides the fact that 4:147 does not say the above but rather that God does not chastise the sincere, grateful believer, the verse i quoted was 4:149 where the doing of good in open or secret, as well as pardonning men is encouraged

    Originally Posted by Hawkeye
    But then in Q17:54 God will forgive IF he pleases – rather inconsistent don’t you think, we simply don’t know what God might do?

    BEsides the fact that the verse i quoted was 17:53 although i referenced 17:54, this latter verse starts with God saying how He knows His creation best, and that it is on the basis of such intimate knowledge that He will either forgive or chastise us. Throughout the Quran (and your OT) we read that God forgives the sincere, and only God knows if we are truthful in our repentance hence the starting of the verse 17:54 with “Your Lord knows you best”

    Originally Posted by Hawkeye
    In Q24:22 (though your sentence was not clear) I see nothing about ‘ignorance’?

    The sentence was clear and the context of 24:22 is that of those who have been wronged through slander, they should not, on the basis of such talks stop helping the needy if they happen to accuse them. Not only should they not stop helping them, but they should also pardon them because obviously they speak out of ignorance or have been misguided as the previous verse shows.

    Originally Posted by Hawkeye
    But is this verse partial in that God only helps those who help him?

    24:22 does not even hint to the above. It asks the believer a rethorical question, in order to stress the importance of forgiving men; if they like that God forgives their faults, why do they not forgive other people’s faults?

    Originally Posted by Hawkeye
    No one is say there are no rewards but they are NOT the motive

    You were already told that the primary intent is to show obedience to God, and that there is nothing wrong in doing good while desiring the reward of the hereafter. Jesus plainly tells you to “store up for yourselves treasures in heaven” which means that doing good with that perspective doesnt take away the merit. Such desire makes one also aware that, just as God will be good to us and reward us in excess of our actual good deeds and despite our trespasses and disobedience, we should also be good to others despite their faults and in excess of their goodness to us. As the Quran teaches us, treating others as one would like to be treated 83:1-6 and even better yet 59:9 because what constitutes success in God’s eyes is benevolence towards men 2:177 which Allah compares to an uphill climb 90:12-20.

  80. Jeff says:

    Wow, this is really crazy. You guys spend half your lives trying to find “cracks” in the bible… of course it is going to have discrepancies… any historical, narrative account written by multiple authors in ancient language is going to have discrepancies. I agree that the Bible has accuracy issues. However, the alternative you present, Islam, is clearly unacceptable to rational humans when, in *practice*, on the real world stage, it promotes violence and death to those who don’t believe, subjugation of women to men, sharia law, honor killings, bombings, murder, etc. all in the name of Allah. You may individually be men of peace, but why do you spend your time nitpicking biblical verses, when your brothers in arms, are killing non-Muslims in a form of islamic jihad throughout the world if they disagree with your teachings? The opponents of Islam are not your Christian or Jewish brothers, the opponents of Islam are those who cause Islam to be synonymous with death, discrimination, and oppression against those who hold differing beliefs.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Thank you for admitting that the Bible is not inerrant and does indeed have inaccurate information which means that it cannot be directly from God who can never supply inaccurate and blatantly wrong information that confuses people. Jeff, if you really want to make comparisons you will lose horribly. Muslim criminals and even terrorists are put to shame by their Christian counterparts. World War 1 was started by a Jew and excessively participated by practicing Christians which caused the deaths of millions of people. World War II was mostly participated by Christians. It was Christians under the motto of “in God we truth” who snuffed out 300 000 lives in a blink of an eye by dropping the atomic bomb on densely civilian populated cities being the first ever people to do so. It was Christians with their Christian chaplains and again under the motto “in God(Jesus) we truth”(and “for our cause it is just”) who went and caused the deaths of 3 MILLION Vietnamese. It was Christians led by a Christian namely George Bush who claimed that Jesus/God told him to wage a crusade against Iraq which directly caused the deaths of over 600 000 people mostly civilians according to The Lancet and John Hopkins University. It was his father along with other Christians who forced Iraqis into starvation through the oil for money program(sanctions and embargoes) and according to Human Rights watch agencies directly caused the deaths of over 100 000 children in a period of 11 years. Need I continue? Please wake up and smell the coffee. The world is in tatters mostly due to the dastardly efforts of Christian countries and their machinations.

    • Jesus says:

      Hi Jeff

      The alternative to Bible is Quran not Muslims doing bad things as Muslims does not have the monopoly in doing bad things in the world .

      Look at the Quran as alternative to the Bible , the Quran dosent have outright errors as in the Bible , it is a literal masterpiece , it is scientifically spot on .

  81. Jesus says:

    Brother Anwar Christians often bring up the 500 witnesses in supporting the resurrection of Christ they say Paul was not a liar so why he would lie in this .

    What is your view akhee

  82. rocky says:

    “IT IS NOT GOOD TO TAKE THE childrens bread and to cast it to dogs”

    jesus believed that is was a SIN TO HELP an ill gentile girl. he clearly said it was NOT GOOD to give bread to an ILL gentile girl

    the greek

    Word Origin
    a prim. word
    Definition
    beautiful, good
    NASB Word Usage
    beautiful (1), better (5), better* (2), commendable manner (1), excellent (1), fair (1), fine (2), good (79), high (1), honest (1), honorable (1), right thing (1), sound (1), treasure* (1), what is right (2).

    jesus thought it was not right, not good , not fair to give food/miracle to an ILL gentile girl

    look here

    καλός, καλή, καλόν (probably primarily ‘sound,’ ‘hale,’ ‘whole ;’ cf. Vanicek, p. 140f; Curtius, § 31), the Sept. for יָפֶה beautiful, but much more often for טוב good; beautiful, applied by the Greeks to everything so distinguished in form, excellence, goodness, usefulness, as to be pleasing; hence (according to the context) equivalent to “beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable”;

    jesus believed that it would be the OPPOSITE OF the definitions about if he had helped the ILL GENTILE girl

    kalos: beautiful, good
    Original Word: καλός, ή, όν
    Part of Speech: Adjective
    Transliteration: kalos
    Phonetic Spelling: (kal-os’)
    Short Definition: beautiful, good, worthy
    Definition: beautiful, as an outward sign of the inward good, noble, honorable character; good, worthy, honorable, noble, and seen to be so.

  83. rocky says:

    IT IS ONLY AFTER jesus’ LEARNS THAT A GENTILE WOMAN IS A HUMAN BEING WHO CAN HAVE FAITH, WHO CAN Have FAITH BETTER THAN THE CHILDREN, WHO FEELS PAIN JUST LIKE ANY OTHER HUMAN- IT IS ONLY after hE LEARNS THAT THE WOMAN AINT NO ANIMAL and IS HUMAN WITH THINKING SKILLS, FAITH, AND FEELING did he CHANGE his mind.

  84. Brandon says:

    Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wished to say that I have truly
    loved surfing around your weblog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing in your feed and I am hoping you write once more very soon!

  85. rocky says:

    jesus is a failed prophet according to the new testament

    “For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

    Verily I say unto you, There be SOME standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man COMING in his kingdom.”

    (Matthew 16:27-28)

    The “coming” in verse 28 has clear affinity with the “coming” of verse 27.

    This is because of the rule of context that says when the same word is used two or more times within a context, it likely has the same meaning unless there are clear compelling reasons to believe the author differentiated them

    the 2nd Coming and transfiguration are clearly two different events because the transfiguration is no coming by the son at all. he had not left earth yet but was still on earth, so the meaning could hardly be that he was coming at the transfiguration.

    notice how the failed crucified god of christians words his comments? “SOME standing here” i.e NOT ALL standing HERE ,because OTHERS will “taste DEATH”

    jesus was not addressing his 12 deciples, he was addressing more than 12 people. and he outright said that only SOME from among those people would REMAIN alive to c the son of man coming in his kingdom.

    jesus of the nt thought that he was going to come as king in his kingdom and sit on his throne.Matthew 25:31-45

    When? In “this generations” In the lifespans of “Some
    standing here”. In the lifespan of the High priest at Jerusalem.

  86. rock says:

    8) Given that we know Matthew loves his Midrash, given his Jewish audience, the whole story seems to be replaying Moses. Wicked king Herod, after killing children in response to this upstart leader of the New Kingdom, chases the family into Egypt where they hang out for some time to “come out of Egypt” and in so doing fulfill a prophecy, to lead the Jewish nation to their ‘promised land’ (new kingdom).
    Wicked ‘king’ Pharaoh, after being responsible for the death of Egyptian children (firstborn), chases Moses, leader of the Israelites out of Egypt to their promised land.
    This smacks less of history, more of theology.

    9) Given this whole, rather high-profile set of events, involving scribes, the king and important foreigners parading through Jerusalem, we hear nothing about this from any other source. But it gets worse. We hear nothing about this from any other Gospel. But it gets worse, we hear nothing about this in later Matthew. But it gets worse, we have no connection made to these events when Jesus returns late in his ministry, to Jerusalem. No scribes reference this, nothing, from no one. No one connects the fact that 30 years before, a prophecy had been discovered (apparently heretofore unknown) that Jesus would be the Messiah and the King went around with soldiers murdering babies. No one in Jerusalem seems to have the slightest idea who Jesus was or that the Messiah was prophesied and acted upon by the authorities and army,m unsuccessfully.

    http://debunkingchristianity.b.....herod.html

  87. terminator2 says:

    the christians say that god became 100 percent human

    humans being have sexual thoughts

    human beings have sexual temptations

    does this mean that the christian god had sexual thoughts aswell? if not, then how was he “100 %” human?

    the christian god says that looking @ a woman in a lustful way is a sin

    jesus has mary m use her hair to rub oil in his feet

    jesus’ didn’t FIGHT sexual temptations?

    jesus’ says that lusting in the heart is a sin and humans FIGHT thier sinful thoughts every day

    jesus did not have sinful THOUGHTS? lol

Leave a Reply