assalamu alaikum wr wbOriginally Posted by Zaid 'Abdur-Rahman
Akhti UmmIbrahimIsa, have you heard any more from this Kafir?
yes more of his repeated messages, its like spam. im trying to ignore them for now..... its like he says if i dont believe in him he'll curse me to suffer death. astagfiruAllah..... as God has given him powers to bring people his way.
Islamic Info
Stories of the Prophets
Ibyisaliamom 's BLOG my own site
Update as of Aug 21, 2011 24/7 f/t mom of 3 kids.
assalamu alaikum wr wb
yes more of his repeated messages, its like spam. im trying to ignore them for now..... its like he says if i dont believe in him he'll curse me to suffer death. astagfiruAllah..... as God has given him powers to bring people his way.
Just ignore him then, and if you feel like it, read my previous posts, and use some of that. But, like I said, I would put his email into my spam blocker.
sister just block his email address .. lol hha.. i know its about a year on but whats the update on this situation
Here is what I would show him
10. NT corruption Admitted! (Damning confessions by NT scholars!):-
These are not any mullah's or Imam's saying that the NT has been corrupted, rather these are the admissions of the scholars of Christianity themselves, many of whom have themselves studied the mass of differing and conflicting manuscripts of the NT, that the NT was tampered and has been corrupted.
"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations (inserted verses) are asserted even in these." [Encyclopedia Britannica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643]
After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:
"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference" [Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3]
The Text of the NT developed freely for quite some time depending upon the whims and fancies of Christians. Kurt and Barbara Aland say:
"Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely. It was the "living text" in the Greek literary tradition, unlike the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was subject to strict controls because (in the oriental tradition) the consonantal text was holy. And the New Testament text continued to be a "living text" as long as it remained a manuscript tradition, even when the Byzantine church molded it to the procrustean bed of the standard and officially prescribed text. Even for later scribes, for example, the parallel passages of the Gospels were so familiar that they would adapt the text of one Gospel to that of another. They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standard of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not been attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves to be filled with the Spirit. As a consequence the text of the early period was many-faceted, and each manuscript had its own peculiar character." [Aland & Aland, The Text Of The New Testament, pp. 69.]
In the latter part of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says: "As the brethren desired me to write epistles (letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares (changes), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these."
"It is impossible to deny that the Benedictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland's 'Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury', is the following passage: 'Lanfranc, a Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam." [History of Christianity in the light of Modern knowledge, Higgins p.318]
Sir Higgins goes on to say:
"The same Protestant divine has this remarkable passage: 'Impartiality exacts from me the confession, that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels."
James Bentley admits:-
"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written" [Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117]
In the introduction of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford press we read the following admission of NT corruption: "Occasionally it is evident that the text has suffered in the transmission and that none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text."
"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." ["Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.]
Jerome complained of the copyists who:
"write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own." [Bruce M Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption & Restoration pp. 195 (See footnotes).]
Involuntary and Intentional corruption admitted:-
"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors." [Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633]
Howard Clark Kee observes:-
"Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) relying on the testimony of Papias refers to the gospel of Mark as the "memoir" of Peter. . .[It must be acknowledged that the gospels [as we have them today] do not match the description that Justin Martyr offered for them in the middle of the second century A.D. The gospel of Mark is not a "memoir" of Peter, either in the sense that it recounts in a special way the associations of Peter with Jesus or in the sense that Mark reports first-hand recollections about Jesus. The material on which Mark drew passed through a long process of retelling and modification and interpretation, and it reflects less special interest in Peter than does Matthew's gospel." [Howard Clark Kee, Jesus in History, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1970) p. 120. ]
Intentional and accidental changes of the NT admitted:-
"[Before an ancient writing can speak for itself, can tell of its author's outlook on life, and the situation that confronted him, we must have that writing in the form in which it was originally written. . . . during the centuries that elapsed between the time of composition and the appearance of our earliest manuscripts the writings had been frequently copied. As a result numerous changes had been made, both intentional and accidental. But not alone minute changes such as alteration in spelling or word order, but more drastic alterations occur. . . . Hence the question of integrity is of great importance. By this is meant simply: Is the book as we possess it exactly the same as it was when it left the author's hand?" [Morton Scott Enslin, Christian Beginnings, (New York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1938), p. 208. ]
"With the exception of the Pauline letters the New Testament writings were relatively slow in appearing and a high proportion of them are anonymous." ["The Cambridge History of the Bible", Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970 p. 233]
The celebrated NT scholar, Bruce Metzger, admits:-
"The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original." [Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964]
"Thus a study of the history of the text of the New Testament in the earliest and formative period shows a number of different factors at work. In the first place, the New Testament documents have been open to the normal hazards of manuscript transmission. This is evident in some lines of descent....It is still a matter of debate whether any places have been so affected in all lines of transmission: a plausible case for corruption might be made in John 3: 25, I Cor. 6: 5, Col. 2: 18, and Jas. 1: 17, to mention only some striking instances... Another debated factor is the influence of doctrine upon the text. It is understandable that many scholars, conscious of the sensibilities of fellow-churchmen, and often sharing those sensibilities themselves (whether from a consciously conservative standpoint or not), should have denied that any variant had arisen from alteration in the interest of some doctrinal issue. However, we have seen that there are instances where we run in the face of the evidence if we deny the presence of this factor in the development of the text. Many variants which can be traced to the second century bear the mark of the development of doctrine... Many variants of a different kind have sprung from the closely related factor of interpretation... Lastly, we perceive that change has come about as a result of the history of the Greek language, both conscious changes from locutions deemed barbaric to others considered cultured, and unconscious changes such as arose through the disappearance of the dative case or the attenuation of the perfect." [C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 375 - 376]
Toland observes:
"We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the first was to forge books, this evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers of all books good or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning and original monuments of Christianity. How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to them? Or since they were in the dark about these matters so early how came such as followed them by a better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books were often put upon the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers, and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last, or sometimes, when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose these two other questions: Why all the books cited genuine by Clement of Alexander. Origen. Tertullian and the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should he laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same facts?" [The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73 (From: Jesus Prophet of Islam).]
Bart Ehram, admits:-
"The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of flawless reproduction. They were copied by hand, by living, breathing human beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the scribes' polemical contexts influence the way they transcribed their sacred Scriptures? The burden of the present study is that they did, that theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of Scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently 'orthodox' and less susceptible to 'abuse' by the opponents of orthodoxy." [The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 3-4]
Bart Ehram also admits: [The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 27] "People today generally believe that there is only ONE Bible, and ONE version of any given verse of the Bible. As we have begun to see, this is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NASV, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one "ancient manuscript" but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today but show up in more recent "ancient manuscripts." There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the "Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript," Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of "mount Gerizim, "while in the "Hebrew manuscript" the exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal." From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some "ancient manuscripts" mentions "Synagogues of Judea," others mention "Synagogues of Galilee." This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of its own."
Bart Ehram continues:
"Nonetheless, there are some kinds of textual changes for which it is difficult to account apart from the deliberate activity of a transcriber. When a scribe appended an additional twelve verses to the end of the Gospel of Mark, this can scarcely be attributed to mere oversight" [The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehram, pp. 27-28]
NT is being reconstructed using imperfect copies:
"Since - like virtually all ancient literature - no autographs are extant for the NT, its most likely original text must be reconstructed from these imperfect, often widely divergent, later copies. [David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary On CD-ROM, (Under Textual Criticism, NT).]
Another confession of NT corruption and adulteration:-
"Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the "original reading but in the "true reading."
This is precisely the attitude toward the NT which prevailed from the earliest times to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the invention of printing. The thousands of Greek MSS, MSS of the versions, and quotations of the Church Fathers provide the source for our knowledge of the earliest or original text of the NT and of the history of the transmission of that text before the invention of printing." [George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press, Nashville, pp. 594-595 (Under Text, NT).]
Another damaging confession of NT corruption:-
"THE PROBLEM. The NT is now known, whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS alone. Every one of these handwritten copies differ from every other one. In addition to these Greek MSS, the NT has been preserved in more than ten thousand MSS of the early versions and in thousands of quotations of the Church Fathers. These MSS of the versions and quotations of the Church Fathers differ from one another just as widely as do the Greek MSS. Only a fraction of this great mass of material has been fully collated and carefully studied. Until this task is completed, the uncertainty regarding the text of the NT will remain.
It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings. It is true, of course, that the addition of the readings from another 150 MSS of Luke would not add another 30,000 readings to the list. But each MS studied does add substantially to the list of variants. It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.
Many thousands of these different readings are variants in orthography or grammar or style and however effect upon the meaning of the text. But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma. It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally. It may not, e.g., affect the substance of Christian dogma to accept the reading "Jacob the father of Joseph, and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed) the father of Jesus who is called 'Christ'" (Matt. 1:16), as does the Sinaitic Syriac; but it gives rise to a theological problem.
It has been said that the great majority of the variant readings in the text of the NT arose before the books of the NT were canonized and that after those books were canonized, they were very carefully copied because they were scripture. This, however, is far from being the case. It is true, of course, that many variants arose in the very earliest period. There is no reason to suppose, e.g., that the first person who ever made a copy of the autograph of the Gospel of Luke did not change his copy to conform to the particular tradition with which he was familiar. But he was under no compulsion to do so. Once the Gospel of Luke had become scripture, however, the picture was changed completely. Then the copyist was under compulsion to change his copy, to correct it. Because it was scripture, it had to be right." [George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press, Nashville, pp. 594-595 (Under Text, NT).]
Another confession:
"The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and perishable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities." [George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, pp. 599 (Under Text, NT).]
Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute is one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world. It states: "Yes the Bible is human, though some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men." ["Is the Bible the word of God?" pg. 17]
Following quotes are taken from the lecture Delivered by Bart Ehram at Duke Divinity School in 1997:- [complete lecture available online from www.islamic-awareness.org]
"In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem. I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not. ["Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies." The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997 Lecture One: "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text Delivered by Bart Ehram]
"...the early Christians evidently saw no need to preserve their original texts for antiquarian or other reasons. Had they been more fully cognizant of what happens to documents that are copied by hand, however, especially by hands that are not professionally trained for the job, they may have exercised greater caution in preserving the originals. As it is, for whatever historical reasons, the originals no longer survive. What do survive are copies of the originals, or, to be more precise, copies made from the copies of the copies of the originals, thousands of these subsequent copies, dating from the 2nd to the 16th centuries, some of them tiny fragments the size of a credit card, uncovered in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt, others of them enormous and elegant tomes preserved in the great libraries and monasteries of Europe." ["Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies." The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997 Lecture One: "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text" Delivered by Bart Ehram]
"In many instances of textual variation, possibly most, we are safe in saying that when the vast majority of manuscripts have one reading and only a couple have another, the majority are probably right. But this is not always the case. Sometimes a couple or a few manuscripts appear to be right even when all the others disagree. In part this is because the vast majority of our manuscripts were produced hundreds and hundreds of years after the originals, and they themselves were copied not from the originals but from other much later copies. Once a change made its way into the manuscript tradition, it could be perpetuated until it became more commonly transmitted than the original wording." ["Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies." The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997 Lecture One: "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text" Delivered by Bart Ehram]
"Within the pages of the New Testament there are textual variations that have not yet been satisfactorily resolved and that have profound effects, not just on a word here or there, but on the entire meaning of entire books and their portrayals of Jesus, e.g., the angry Jesus of Mark, the imperturbable Jesus of Luke, and the forsaken Jesus of Hebrews. These textual problems cannot simply be swept under the table and ignored. Commentators, interpreters, preachers, and general readers of the Bible must recognize their existence and realize the stakes involved in solving them." ["Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies." The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997 Lecture One: "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text" Delivered by Bart Ehram]
One comes across Christian missionaries frequently using the material and allegations made against the Holy Qur'ân by wannabe Muslim cultists, such as the "Submitters." Even though the Christians know very well these are not Muslims, nevertheless missionaries still quote from them to deceive their readers and give the false impression as if a Muslim is making allegations against the Qur'ân etc. So to repay the missionaries, I have also decided to quote the Jehovah's witnesses, whom our friends at ***************.org dub "non Christians." If its good enough for the missionaries to quote non Muslim cultists and their fellow fundamentalist missionaries, then its good enough for me to repay them in their own manner. at least I am not hiding the identity of the fellows whom I'm quoting and am letting the readers know who they are:
"In copying the inspired originals by hand the element of human frailty entered in, and so none of the thousands of copies extant today in the original language are perfect duplicates. The result is that no two copies are exactly alike." [New World Translation pg. 5 foreword -- The forward of 27 pages was latter eliminated after the admission of NT corruption was made ny the Jehovah witnesses.]
They further went on admitting the corruption of the NT in the same now expunged foreword:
"The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek scripture has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX." [ibid]
Lets quote again Bruce Metzger, a scholar even admired by the missionaries because he is the foremost authority on the transmission of the tampered NT Metzger’s words from p. 201 where he says:
“The number of deliberate alterations made in the interests of doctrine is difficult to assess.” [Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964]
Metzger goes on to conclude on page 246, the last page of the edition (1964). "By way of conclusion, let it be emphasized again that no single manuscript and no one group of manuscripts exists which the textual critic may follow mechanically. All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors. Although in very many cases the textual critic is able to ascertain without residual doubt which reading must have stood in the original, there are not a few other cases where he can come only to a tentative decision based on an equivocal balancing of probabilities. Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. In textual criticism, as in other areas of historical research, one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what, because of conflicting witnesses, cannot be known."
Those are Metzger’s concluding words to the entire study of how the text of the New Testament was corrupted over the history of its transmission and how efforts are still ongoing to restore it. (above two quotes from Metzger taken from Shabbir Ally's article where he refutes the false and devious allegations made against him by Mr. Sam Shamoun, the evangelical Christian missionary.)
Kenneth Cragg, Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem says on page 277 of his book, "The call of the Minerat":
"Not so the New Testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history."
Morton Scott Enslin admits intentional changes made in the NT:
"[Before an ancient writing can speak for itself, can tell of its author's outlook on life, and the situation that confronted him, we must have that writing in the form in which it was originally written. . . . during the centuries that elapsed between the time of composition and the appearance of our earliest manuscripts the writings had been frequently copied. As a result numerous changes had been made, both intentional and accidental. But not alone minute changes such as alteration in spelling or word order, but more drastic alterations occur. . . . Hence the question of integrity is of great importance. By this is meant simply: Is the book as we possess it exactly the same as it was when it left the author's hand?" [Morton Scott Enslin, Christian Beginnings, (New York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1938), p. 208]
The above are all clear cut admission by those who study the NT, that it is not authentic and is in fact edited, tampered at intentionally by those who wrote it down due to their own preconceived notions. It, the NT, therefore cannot be God's inerrant word. [TOP]
Maybe ask him about this
RESSURECTION
If you read Matthew (28:1-10), Mark (16:1-20), Luke (24:1-12), and John (20: 1-18), you will find contradicting stories. They all agreed that the tomb was guarded for three days. However, they reported the discovery of the empty tomb differently.
Matthew (28) and John (20) reported that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the first to discover the tomb.
Mark (16) reports that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were the first to discover the empty tomb.
Mark (28) reports that there was an earthquake that removed the rock from over the tomb. He says that an angel caused it. The other gospels do not mention of an earthquake.
Matthew and Mark say that only ONE man in white clothes was sitting on the tomb when the woman arrived, and that he was an angel.
Luke says that TWO men in white clothes, who were angels, were sitting. Johns says that the two women did not meet anybody the first time they came to the tomb, but when they returned, they saw TWO people, ONE was an ANGEL, and the other was JESUS.
Matthew reports that when the guards reported this to the chief priest, the chief priest paid them a large sum of money, telling them: "You have to say that his disciples came at night and stole his body." He claims that the soldiers took money and spread the story around and since then, the story had been circulating among the Jews until today (according to Matthew). The other gospels do not report of any such thing.
35. Which narration now is more authentic?
35. Which narration now is more authentic?
36.Why is the appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion taken as a proof of his resurrection when there is an explanation that he was not dead because someone else was crucified in his place when God saved Him?
37.How did Matthew know of the claimed agreement between the soldiers and the chief priest? Can’t someone say that someone paid the women a large sum of money and told them to spread the word around that Jesus rose from the dead, with the same authenticity as that of the story of Matthew?
38.Why did they believe that man in the white clothes? Why did they believe he was an angel? John’s narration is too strange, since he says that Mary did not recognize Jesus (one of the two) while talking to him, and she only recognized him when he called her by her name.
39.How does an empty tomb prove that Jesus was crucified ? Isn’t it that God is capable of removing another man from the tomb, and of resurrecting him too?
40.The Gospels are believed to be the verbatim words of God, they are supposed to be dictated by the Holy Spirit to the Disciples who wrote them. If the source were the same, why shouldn’t they correspond with each other in reporting such an important event?
41.How could Matthew, Mark, Luke and John be considered eyewitnesses of resurrection when the Bible implies that nobody at all saw Jesus coming out of the tomb?
CONTRADICTIONS:
47.Concerning the controversial issues in the Bible, how can Christians decide by two-thirds majority what is God’s Word and what is not, as the prefaces of some Bibles say like that one of the RSV ?
48.Why does Luke in his gospel report the Ascension on Easter Day, and in the Acts, in which he is recognized as the author, FORTY days later?
49.The genealogy of Jesus is mentioned in Matthew and Luke only. Matthew listed 26 forefathers from Joseph to David while Luke enumerated 41 forefathers. Only Joseph matches with Joseph in those two lists. Not a single other name matches! If these were inspired by God word by word, how could they be different? Some claim that one is for Mary and one is for Joseph, but where does it says Mary in those two Gospels?
50.If Moses wrote the first books of the Old Testament, how could Moses write his own obituary? Moses died in the fifth book at age 120 as mentioned in Deut. 34:5-10.
51.In the King James Version, why does it report SEVEN years of famine in II SAMUEL 24:13 while it reports THREE years of famine in I CHRONICLES 21:12? Why did they change both to THREE years in the New International Version and other versions?
52.Still In the same King James Version, why does it say that Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign in II CHRONICLES 21:12, while it says EIGHTEEN years in II KINGS 24:8? Why did thessey change in both to EIGHTEEN in the new Versions?
53.In all versions, why does it say that David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand HORSEMEN as evidenced in II Samuel 10:18 while its says SEVEN THOUSAND men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand FOOTMEN, in I CHRONICLES 19:18?
54.In all versions, why does it report TWO thousand baths in I KINGS 7:26 while II CHRONICLES 4:5 reports THREE THOUSAND?
55.In the King James version, why does it report that Solomon had FOUR THOUSAND stalls for horses in II CHRONICLES 9:25 while it accounts that Solomon had FORTY THOUSAND stalls of horses in 1 KINGS 4:26? Why did they change both to FOUR THOUSAND in the new versions?
56.In GENESIS 1, God’s creation progresses from grass to trees to fowls, whales, cattle and creeping things and finally to man and woman. GENESIS 2, however, puts the creation of man before cattle and fowl and woman subsequent to beast. How can this be explained?
QUR’AN AND CHRISTIANS
This section does not inquire or interrogate, but rather provides the reader with some of the Qur’anic verses that address the Christians in particular, and the people of the scripture in general. A great portion of the Qur’an pertains to or involves the Christians and the Jews and I decided to just choose verses that are related to the topic of this manuscript.
"Lo! The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then said unto him: Be, and he was." Al-Qur’an 3:59.
"Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for Lords besides Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto him).
"O People of the Scripture! Why will you argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were revealed till after him? Have you then no sense?
Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.
Lo! Those of mankind who have the best claim to Abraham are those who followed him, and his Prophet and those who believe (with him); and Allah is the Protector of the believers.
A party of the People of the Scripture longs to make you go astray; and they make none to go astray except themselves, but they perceive not.
O People of the Scripture! Why disbelieve you in the revelations of Allah, when you (yourselves) bear witness to their truth?
O People of the Scriptures! Why confound you truth with falsehood and knowingly conceal the Truth? (Al-Qur’an 3: 64-71)
And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the hereafter, He will be one of the losers (Al-Qur’an 3:85).
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, and Allah’s messenger. They slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them, and Lo! Those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain:
But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. (Al-Qur’an 4:157-158).
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter ought concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him, so believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three"! Cease! (it is ) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as defender.
The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favored angels. Whosoever scorns His service and is proud, all such will assemble unto Him.
Then, as for those who believed and did good works, unto them will He give them their wages in full, adding unto them of His bounty; and as for those who were scornful and proud, then He will punish with a painful doom." (Al-Qur’an 4:171-173).
"And with those who say Lo! We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.
O People of the Scripture! Now has our messenger come unto you, expounding unto you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Now has come unto light from Allah and plain scripture:
Whereby Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace, He brings them out of darkness unto light by His decree, and guides them unto a Straight Path.
They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah if he had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah’s is the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what he wills. And Allah is able to do all things. (Al-Qur’an 5:14:17).
"They surely disbelieve who say; Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O children if Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and you Lord. Lo! Whosoever ascribes partners unto Allah, for him Allah has forbidden Paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evildoers ,there will be no helpers.
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of the three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying, a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.
Say: Serve you in place of Allah that which possesses for you neither hurt nor use? Allah is the Hearer, the Knower.
Say: O People of the Scripture! Stress not in your religion other than the Truth, and follow not the vain desire of folks who erred of old and led many astray, and erred from a plain road." (Al-Qur’an 5:72-77)
"And when Allah says: O Jesus, son of Mary: Did you say unto mankind: take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?, he says: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You Knew it, You know what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Your mind. Lo! You, only You, are the knower of things hidden.
I spoke unto them only that which You commanded me (saying); worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when You took me, You were the Watcher over them. You are witness over all things.
If You punish them, Lo! They are Your slaves, and if you forgive them (Lo! They are Your slaves). Lo! You, only you are the Mighty, the Wise.
Allah says: This is a day in which their truthfulness profits the truthful, for theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they are secure forever, Allah taking pleasure in them and they in Him. That is the great triumph. (Al-Qur’an 5:116-119)
"And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah’, and the Christians say: ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah’. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah fights against them. How perverse they are!
They have taken as Lord besides Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partners (unto him)!
Faint would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdains (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse.
He it is Who has sent His messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to cause it to prevail over all religions, however much the idolaters may be averse.
O you who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (people) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom.
On the Day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of Hell, and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them): Here is that which you hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what you used to hoard." (Al-Qur’an 9:30-35).
MUHAMMAD OR JESUS?
Christians claim that the prophecy in Deut. 18:18 refers to Jesus and not Muhammad. The verse says: "I will raise them up a prophet from among THEIR BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO THEE, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." The only reason they resort to such interpretation is that both Moses and Jesus were prophets. Even this one contradicts their claim that Jesus was God and not a Prophet. Many prophets of the Jews had the similarity with Moses. However, if we compare Muhammad to Moses, we will find that:
Muhammad was an Arab, and the Arabs are from Ishmael, son of Abraham, while Moses was a Jew, and the Jews are from Isaac, son of Abraham. Hence, the term THEIR BRETHREN refers to the children of the first son being brethren of the children of the other. This couldn’t apply to Jesus, since he was a Jew.
According to the Christians, Jesus went to Hell for three days while Moses did not. Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses. (In Islam, none of the three Prophets went to Hell)
Moses and Muhammad were born to fathers and mothers while Jesus was born to a mother alone.
Moses and Muhammad got married and had children, while Jesus did not marry at all.
Moses and Muhammad got problems and difficulties from their people initially, but were accepted by them at the end., whereas Jesus was rejected by his people at the start and is still rejected by the Jews until today. "He (Jesus) came unto his own, but his own received him not".( John 1:11)
Moses and Muhammad had power, besides being prophets. They both performed some capital punishments, for example, while Jesus had no power over his people. "My kingdom is not of this world", Jesus said in John 18:36 .
Moses and Muhammad brought new laws while Jesus did not.
Moses was forced to emigrate in adulthood to Median while Muhammad was forced to emigrate at that stage in his life too, towards Madina . Whereas Jesus did not have such forced emigration in his adulthood .
Moses and Muhammad both died of natural deaths after which they were buried ,while the same could not be said of Jesus. He was neither killed nor crucified at all, according to the Qur’an and did not die a ‘natural’ death as could be affirmed by Christians who believe in Crucifixion.
FINAL QUESTIONS:
57.Why won’t you, Christian reader, come to hear and learn of the true religion of Jesus?
58.Have you, as a Christian , learned of Islam and if so, was it from the true Muslims?
59.As a Christian, do you agree that out of fairness and honesty you must investigate what Islam says about God, Jesus, including this life and the hereafter?
60.Being a Christian, do you also believe that we must all stand accountable to our Creator and that the Creator is Perfect and Just? As a sincere believer in God, don’t you owe it upon yourself to find out the entire unadulterated truth regardless of the consequences?
Hope this helps.
wa aleykum as salam wr wb
Hmm... Umm, I have a solution. Have you ever heard of Dr. Zakir Naik? MashAllah, he shun all the misconceptions of the Quran and Islam and also the christian belief. Tell this "dude" to check out the lectures and diolagues by him. the website it : www.drzakirnaik.com
khair inshAllah
As salamu aleykum wr wb
SuhaanAllah! I don't what sounds crazier this guy's dogmatic rantings or the bible verses he's quoting. I get confused just reading it.
Re: how to give dawah to a born again christian
am using this site for the 1st time, anyway.. i want him 2 talk 2 me, just tell him that u have a frnd n he wants you to tell him about christianity. let him quote his bible to me..
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks