Corruption of the Torah
Some Jewish websites attempt to prove the corruption of the Qur'an. These sites attempt to show that Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to kill all non-Muslims and force them into Islam. A knowledgeable Muslim would be able to easily refute these claims.
However, it is necessary to counter such attacks, and effectively launch an offensive strike respectfully and calmly. A person possessing the truth does not need arrogance. Allah has placed us on this earth to convey his message to people - this includes the Jews. We wish for them the same guidance we wish for ourselves.
Allah (SWT) says: "And argue not with the people of the book unless it be in (a way) which is better (than mere arguing), except with such of them that do wrong, and say (to them): 'We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)" (Holy Qur'an, 29:46)
The Proof
Did mankind tamper with the Old Testament? The Jews have handed down their Old Testament, as the faultless words of Moses and the prophets. The "Old testament" is made up of the "Torah," which is also called "the Pentateuch," and the "Books of the Prophets." The "Torah" consists of the first five books of the Old Testament. They are believed by the Jews to have been written by Moses . These five books are: "Genesis," "Exodus," "Leviticus," "Numbers," and "Deuteronomy."
We can notice easily in these books conflicting accounts of many matters. For instance, in the eleventh century, it was noticed that the list of Edomite kings in Genesis 36, names kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Then people began to notice such statements as "to this day" something is true, which implies that the author was looking back at these matters through history and has seen that they have endured.
After this, it was noticed that in the beginning verses of the OT manuscripts, Deuteronomy says: "These are the words that Moses spoke to the children of Israel across the Jordan..." They noticed that the words "across the Jordan" refer to people who are on the opposite side of the Jordan River to the author. But the alleged author, Moses himself, was never supposed to have been in Israel in his life. When these conflicting matters started to become well known, it became necessary to find explanations.
The Doublets
The new trend was to explain any and all discrepancies through abstract thought and elaborate interpretations, or through the introduction of additional narrative details that did not appear in the biblical text. Around this time, it was discovered that the stories in the five books of Moses were made up of doublets. A doublet is a case of one story being told twice. For example, there are doublets about the creation of the world; the covenant between God and Abraham; the naming of Isaac, etc.
There were various other literary characteristics which were then found to be common to one group or the other. It became obvious that someone had taken two separate accounts, cut them up, and then woven them together quite masterfully so that their actions would not be discovered.
Once this startling discovery was made, the Old Testament was once again placed under the scrutiny of scholars and it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not made up of two major source documents, but four. It was discovered that some stories were also triplets. Additional literary characteristics were identified for these documents. The third source was called "P" (for Priestly), and the fourth "D" (for Deuteronomy). In the end it was concluded that the first four "books of Moses" were the result of the merging of three separate accounts which were called J, E, and P, and the book of Deuteronomy was found to be a separate account which was called D. The person (or persons) who collected and intertwined these sources was called "The Redactor." Let us take a look at an example of these doublets. The Jehovah (J) text is in regular type, the Priestly (P) in capitals:
Genesis 6
Genesis 6:7: And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Genesis 6:13: And God said unto Noah, the end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Genesis 7
Genesis 7:2: Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens, the male and his female; and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Genesis 7:6: And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Genesis 7:7: And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
Genesis 7:8: Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Well-known Today
All of this has become so firmly established in accepted scientific fact that even Grolier's encyclopedia (Academic American encyclopedia) now readily admits it.
Mr. Richard Elliot Friedman is a professor on the faculty of the University of California, San Diego. He is one of many scholars who have attempted to critically study these "source" documents of the "five books of Moses" in order to arrive at the identity of the authors, the time when each was written, the motives for writing, etc. In his book, "Who wrote the Bible," Prof. Friedman presents strong evidence that each "source document" was written by a person or persons who, while on the face of it seem to narrate the same stories, in actuality had distinctly different goals they wished to achieve. According to Mr. Friedman's research, each source emphasizes a certain branch of the Jews: their nobility, birthright, and closeness to God.
The Remaining Books of the Jews
Well, what about the rest of the Old Testament? Are the remaining books of the Old Testament known to have been preserved from change since the time of their first writing and to truly be the words of the claimed authors? No! Once again, Grolier's encyclopedia tells us: "...Joshua tells of a thorough conquest of Canaan, but Judges contain traditions of the Hebrew tribes in the period before the monarchy that reveal the conquest as partial. The books of Samuel are about the founding of the monarchy under Saul and David and contain a magnificent early source of the life of David. All the above books have been extensively edited by writers who shared the theology of the source."
Fourteen hundred years ago, back when it was a blasphemy of the highest order punishable by death to dare allege that the claimed authors of the Bible were not the true authors (e.g. that Moses, PBUH, did not write the "books of Moses"), the Qur'an was sent down upon Muhammad by God almighty, with the claim that the "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) had changed the book of God.
Muhammad came with the same true religion of God, which was sent down upon Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them all). The Jews and Christians responded that Muslims were ignorant savages who had concocted their own religion by copying Judaism and Christianity.
The Books of the Christians
Christian scholars of today call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the "Synoptic" (One-eyed) Gospels. This is because they all seem to have had access to a common source document used for writing their Gospels. This source document is called 'Q'.
Now they are beginning to recognize that the alleged authors are not the true authors (see chapters 3.1, and 3.2). Similarly, countless verses of the Gospel of John, as well as other historical discrepancies, also go to show that John did not write the Gospel of John. Some scholars suspect that 'Q' may indeed be the Gospel of Barnabas. It is much larger than the others; by all measures it is an authentic Gospel (see chapter 11), and it contains all of the stories contained in these three Gospels without the contradictions found therein.
Specific Contradictions in the Books of the Jews
The following are just a few of many pairs of verses which contradict one another in the books of the Jews:
2 Samuel 8: 4: (7 hundred horsemen)
1 Chronicles 18: 4: (7 thousand horsemen)
1 Chronicles 21: 12: (three years famine)
2 Samuel 24: 13: (seven years famine)
Deuteronomy 2:19 & Deuteronomy 2: 37: (Moses deprived land of Ammon)
Joshua 13: 24-25: (Moses gives land of Ammon as inheritance)
2 Samuel 24: 9: (800,000+500,000)
1 Chronicles 21: 5: (1,100,000+470,000)
2 Chronicles 36: 9: (eight years, three months +10 days)
2 Kings 24: 8: (eighteen years, three months)
The Difference between the Bible and the Qur'an (1/2)
The Bible is a collection of writings by many different authors. The Qur'an is a dictation. The speaker in the Qur'an - in the first person - is God talking directly to man. In the Bible you have many men writing about God and you have in some places the word of God speaking to men and still in other places you have some men simply writing about history.
The Bible consists of 66 small books. About 18 of them begin by saying: This is the revelation God gave to so and so… The rest make no claim as to their origin. You have for example the beginning of the book of Jonah which begins by saying: The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Elmitaeh saying… quote and then it continues for two or three pages.
If you compare that to one of the four accounts of the life of Jesus, Luke begins by saying: "many people have written about this man, it seems fitting for me to do so too". That is all… no claim of saying " these words were given to me by God here they are for you it is a revelation", there is no mention of this.
The Bible does not contain self-reference, that is, the word 'Bible' is not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible talk about itself. Some scriptures are sometimes pointed to in the Bible, say: Here where it talks about itself, but we have to look closely. 2nd Timothy 3:16 is the favourite which reads: "All scripture is inspired of God" and there are those who would say, here is where the Bible it talks about itself, it says it is inspired of God, all of it.
But if you read the whole sentence, you read that this was a letter wrote by Paul to Timothy and the entire sentence says to Timothy: "Since you were a young man you have studied the holy scriptures, all scriptures inspired by God" and so on…
When Timothy was a young man the New Testament did not exist, the only thing that stems he was talking about are scriptures - which are only a portion of the Bible - from before that time. It could not have meant the whole Bible.
It is an extreme position held only by some Christian groups that the Bible - in its entirety - cover to cover is the revealed word of God in every word, but they do a clever thing when they mention this, or make this claim. They will say that the Bible in its entirety is the word of God; inerrant (no mistakes) in the original writings.
So if you go to the Bible and point out some mistakes that are in it you are going to be told: Those mistakes were not there in the original manuscript, they have crept in so that we see them there today. They are going on problem in that position.
There is a verse in the Bible Isaiah 40:8 which in fact is so well known that some Bibles printed it on the inside front cover as an introduction and it says : " The grass weathers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever". Here is a claim in the Bible that the word of God will stand forever, it will not be corrupted, it won't be lost.
So if today you find a mistake in the Bible you have two choices. Either that promise was false that when God said my word wont fade away, he was mistaken, or the portion which has the mistake in it was not a part of the word of God in the first place, because the promise was that it would be safeguarded, it would not be corrupted.
I have suggested many times that there are mistakes in the Bible and the accusation comes back very quickly: Show me one. Well there are hundreds. If you want to be specific I can mention few. You have for example at 2nd Samuel 10:18 a description of a war fought by David saying that he killed 7000 men and that he also killed 40000 men on horsebacks. In 1st Chronicles 19 it mentions the same episode saying that he killed 70000 men and the 40000 men were not on horsebacks, they were on foot.
The point be what is the difference between the pedestrian and not is very fundamental. Matthew 27:5 says that Judas Iscariot when he died he hung himself. Acts 1 says that 'no' he jumped off a cliff head first. If you study Logic very soon you will come in your course to what they call an "undecidable propositions" or "meaningless sentences" or statements that cannot be decided because there is no contextual false.
One of the classic examples sited is something called the Effeminites paradox. This man was Cretan and he said "Cretans always lie", now was that statement true or false? If he was a Cretan and he says that they always lie is he lying? If he is not lying then he is telling the truth then the Cretans don't always lie! You see it cannot be true and it cannot be false, the statement turns back on itself. It is like saying "What I am telling you right now is a lie" would you believe that or not? You see the statement has no true content. It cannot be true and it cannot be false. If it is true it is always false. If it is false it is also true.
Well in the Bible at Titus 1:12 the writer is Paul and he is talking about the Cretans. He says that one of their own men - a prophet - said "Cretans always lie" and he says that what this man says is true. It is a small mistake, but the point is that it is a human mistake, you don't find that if you carefully examine the true content of that statement. It cannot be a true statement.
Now I come back to the Qur'an, and as I mentioned the speaker in the Qur'an- in the first person - is God. The book claims throughout that it is the word of God. It names itself 70 times as the Qur'an. It talks about its own contents. It has self-reference.
The Qur'an states in the first Sura after Fatiha that "This is the book, there is no doubt in it, it is a guidance for those who are conscious of God" and so on and so on… It begins that way and continues that way stressing that. And there is one very amazing statement in the Qur'an when you come to the fourth Sura 82nd Ayah which says to those who say Qur'an is something else than the word of God.
It challenges them saying: "Have they not considered the Qur'an, if it came from someone other than God they will find in it many mistakes". Some of you are students, would you dare to hand in a paper after you completed a research work or something at the bottom you put down there "You wont find mistakes in this". Would you dare to challenge your professor that way?. Well the Qur'an does that.
It is telling: If you really think you know where this came from then starts looking for mistakes because you wont find any.
Another interesting thing the Qur'an does is that it quotes all its critics. There has never - in hundreds of years - ever been some suggestion as to where that book came from but that the Qur'an does not already mention that objection and reply to it.
Many times you will find the Ayah saying something like: Do they say such and such and so, say to them such and such and so. In every case there is a reply. More than that the Qur'an claims that the evidence of its origin is in itself, and that if you look at this book you will be convinced.
So the difference in Christianity and Islam comes down to a difference of authority and appeal to authority. The Christian wants to appeal to the Bible and the Muslim wants to appeal to the Qur'an. You can not stop by saying: This is true because my book say it is, and somebody else would say something else is true because my book says differently, you cannot stop at that point, and the Qur'an does not. The Christians may point to some words that it is recorded Jesus said and say this proves my point.
But the Muslim does not simply open his book and say:No, no the Qur'an says this, because the Qur'an does not simply deny something the Bible says and say something else instead. The Qur'an takes the form of a rebuttal; it is a guidance as the opening says (Huda lil mutakeen). So that for every suggestion that the Christian may say: My Bible says such and such, the Qur'an will not simply say: No that is not true, it will say: Do they say such and such then ask them such and such.
You have for example the Ayah that compares Jesus and Adam. There are those who may say that Jesus must have been God (Son of God) because he had no father. He had a woman who was his mother, but there was no human father. It was God that gave him life, so he must have been God's son.
The Qur'an reminds the Christian in one short sentence to remember Adam - who was his father ? and in fact, who was his mother ? He did not have a father either and in fact he did not have a mother, but what does that make him? So that the likeness of Adam is the likeness of Jesus, they were nothing and then they became something; that they worship God.
So that the Qur'an does not demand belief - the Qur'an invites belief, and here is the fundamental difference. It is not simply delivered as: Here is what you are to believe, but throughout the Qur'an the statements are always: Have you O man thought of such and such, have you considered so and so. It is always an invitation for you to look at the evidence; now what do you believe ?
The citation of the Bible very often takes the form of what is called in Argumentation: Special Pleading. Special Pleading is when implications are not consistent. When you take something and you say: Well that must mean this, but you don't use the same argument to apply it to something else.
To give an example, I have seen it in publications many times, stating that Jesus must have been God because he worked miracles. In other hand we know very well that there is no miracle ever worked by Jesus that is not also recorded in the Old Testament as worked by one of the prophets. You had amongst others, Elijah, who is reported to have cured the leper, raise the dead boy to life and to have multiplied bread for the people to eat - three of the most favorite miracles cited by Jesus.
If the miracles worked by Jesus proved he was God, why don't they prove Elijah was God ? This is Special Pleading, if you see what I mean. The implications are not consistent. If this implies that then in that case it must also imply the same thing.
We have those who would say Jesus was God because he was taken up in the heaven. But the Bible also says that a certain Einah did not die he was taken up into the heaven by God. Whether it is true or not, who knows, but the point is if Jesus being taken up proves he is God, why does not it prove Einah was God? The same thing happened to him.
I wrote to a man one time, who wrote a book about Christianity and I had some of the objections I mentioned to you now.And his reply to me was that I am making matters difficult to myself, that there are portions in the Bible that are crystal clear and that there are portions that are difficult, and that my problem was that I am looking at the difficult part instead of the clear parts.
The problem is that this is an exercise in self deception - why are some parts clear and some parts difficult? It is because somebody decided what this clearly means, now that makes this very difficult. To give you an example, John Chapter 14, a certain man said to Jesus: Show us God, and Jesus said: If you have seen me you have seen God.
Now without reading on the Christian will say: See Jesus claimed to be God, he said if you have seen me you have seen God. If that is crystal clear then you have a difficult portion when you go back just a few pages to Chapter 5 when another man came to Jesus and said show us God and he said you have never seen God, you have never heard his voice. Now what did he mean there if on the other occasion he meant that he was God? Obviously you have made matters difficult by deciding what the first one meant.
The Difference between the Bible and the Qur'an (2/2)
It is a fact that the words "son of God" are not found on the lips of Jesus anywhere in the first three Gospel accounts, he was always calling himself the Son of Man.
And it is a curious form of reasoning that I have seen so often that it is established from Bible that he claimed to be God because - look how the Jews reacted. They will say for example he said such and such and the Jews said he is blaspheming, he claimed to be God and they tried to stone him.
So they argue that he must have been claiming to be God because look ! - the Jews tried to kill him. They said that's what he was claiming. But the interesting thing is that all the evidence is then built on the fact that a person is saying: I believed that Jesus was the son of God because the Jews who killed him said that's what he used to say! His enemies used to say that, so he must have said it, this is what it amounts to.
In other hand we have the words of Jesus saying he would keep the law, the law of Moses and we have the statement in the Bible, why did the Jews kill him? Because he broke the law of Moses.
Obviously the Jews misunderstood him, if he promised he would keep the law, but they killed him because he broke the law, they must have misunderstood him, or lied about him.
When I talk about the Bible and quote various verses here and there I am often accused of putting things out of context, to say you have lifted something out of what it was talking about and given it a meaning. I don't want to respond to the accusation as such, but it doesn't seem to occur to many people that perhaps those who wrote portions of the Bible in the first place were guilty of the same thing.
Maybe they - some of those writers - believed a certain thing and in order to prove it quoted from their scriptures - the Old Testament, the Hebrew writings - out of context to prove their point. There are examples of that kind of thing. In Matthew 2, it said that a king wanted to kill the young child Jesus so he with his family went to Egypt, and they stayed there until that king died, and then they came back.
When the writer of Matthew, whoever he was, because the name Matthew wont be found in the book of Matthew; when he described this event saying that he came back out of Egypt, he said: " This was to fulfil a prophecy which is written" and then he quotes Hosea Chapter 11 "Out of Egypt I called my Son". So he said because Jesus went to Egypt and then came back out of Egypt and we have this passage in the Hebrew scriptures "out of Egypt I called my son" Jesus must have been the son of God.
If you look and see what he was quoting, Hosea 11:1 he quotes the second half of a complete sentence, the complete sentence reads: "When Israel was young I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son". Israel the nation was considered as the son of God.
Moses was told to go to Pharaoh and say to him: If you touch that nation of people, you touch my son; warning him, warning Pharaoh: don't touch that nation, calling the nation "the son of God". So that this is the only thing talked about in Hosea 11:1. "Out of Egypt I called my son" can only refer to the nation of Israel.
I mentioned this point, to a young lady with us objected that Israel is a symbolic name for Jesus. You will have a hard time finding that anywhere in the Bible because it isn't there. You can take an index of the Bible and lookup the word "Israel" everywhere the word occurs and you will find nowhere in any place that you can connect the word Israel with Jesus.
But never mind - suppose it is true, read on, the second verse says "and after that he kept on worshipping Bal", because this is what the Israelites were guilty of, very often they kept falling back into Idol worshipping. So if that "Israel" really meant Jesus and it means that Jesus is the son of God that came out of Egypt they must also mean that Jesus from time to time used to bow down to that idol Bal.
You have to be consistent, and follow through on what it says. So the point is whoever wrote Matthew and Chapter 2 was trying to prove a point by quoting something out of context, and he undid himself, because if you follow through on it, it can not be so.
Now I can come back to the claim that the Qur'an makes that it has internal evidence of its origin. There are many many ways that you can look at this. As one example, if I single out somebody here and say: You know, I know your father - he is going to doubt that, he has never seen me with his father. He would say, how does he look like, is he tall, short, does he wear glasses? and so on, and if I give him the right answers pretty soon he will get convinced, "Oh yes, you did meet him".
If you apply the same kind of thinking when you look at the Qur'an, here is a book that says it came from the one who was there when the universe began. So you should be asking that one: So tell me something that proves it. Tell me something that shows me you must have been there when the universe was beginning.
You will find in two different Ayahs the statement that all the creation began from a single point, and from this point it is expanding. In 1978 they gave the Nobel prize to two people who proved that that's the case. It is the big bang origin of the universe. It was determined by the large radio receivers that they have for the telephone companies which were sensitive enough to pick up the transmissions from satellites and it kept finding background noise that they could not account for.
Until the only explanation came to be, it is the left over energy from that original explosion which fits in exactly as would be predicted by the mathematical calculation of what would be this thing if the universe began from a single point and exploded outwards. So they confirmed that, but in 1978. Centuries before that here is the Qur'an saying the heavens and the earth in the beginning they were one piece and split and says in another Ayah : "of the heavens we are expanding it".
Let me tell you about a personal investigation, it occurred to me that there are a number of things you can find in the Qur'an that give evidence to its origin - internal evidence. If the Qur'an is dictated from a perfect individual; it originates with God, then there should not be any wasted space, it should be very meaningful. There should be nothing that we don't need that you can cut off, and it should not be missing anything. And so that everything in there should really be there for a specific purpose.
And I got to thinking about the Ayah which I mentioned before, it says, the likeness of Jesus is the likeness of Adam. It's an equation, it uses the Arabic word (methel), it says Jesus, Adam, equal. You go to the index of the Qur'an, you look up the name ISA it is in the Qur'an 25 times, you look up the name Adam it is there 25 times. They are equal, through scattered references but 25 of each.
Follow that through and you will find that in the Qur'an there are 8 places were an Ayah says something is like something else, using this (Methel), you will find in every case and take both sides of it whatever that word is, look it up in the index and it will be let's say 110 times and look up the other word and it will be said to be equal to the same 110.
That is quite a project of co-ordination if you try to write a book that way yourself. So that everywhere you happened to mention that such and such is like such and such that then you check your index, filing system, or your IBM punch cards or whatever, to make sure that in this whole book you mentioned them both the same number of times. But that's what you will find in the Qur'an.
What I am talking about is built on a thing that is called in Logic: Use and Mention of a Word. When you use a word, you are using its meaning. When you mention a word, you are talking about the symbol without the meaning. For example, if I say Toronto is a big city - I used the word Toronto as I meant this place Toronto is a big city. But if I say to you Toronto has 7 letters, I am not talking about this place Toronto, I am talking about this word - Toronto. So, the revelation is above reasoning, but it is not above reason.
That is to say we are more up not to find in the Qur'an something that is unreasonable, but we may find something that we would have never figured out for ourselves.
God (Most High) said if this book came from someone besides God then you will find in it many Ikhtalafan (inconsistencies). The word Ikhtilaf is found many times in the Qur'an. But the word Ikhtalafan is only found once in the Qur'an. So there are not many Ikhtilafan in the Qur'an, there is only one - where the sentence is mentioned. So you see how things are put together perfectly.
It has been suggested to mankind: Find a mistake. Man could not get hold of a mistake, and he is very clever, because this sentence could also mean: Find many Iktilafan and so he quickly goes to the index to see if he can find many of them and there is only one... Sorry clever person !
About the Acts of the Apostles
The writer of the Acts is not clearly known, but it is attributed to Paul as the most probable writer. In spite of this fact, it is really shocking to hear that the Church says that the Acts is God's words. How is it so: Paul's words and God's words at the same time? Let us see in this chapter some examples of contradictions in the NT.
The Lord's Christ
A. "The rules were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ." (Acts 4:26).
B. "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19)
In Text (A), the "Lord" refers to God and his Christ refers, of course, to Jesus. In Text (B), the "Lord" obviously refers to Jesus. The NT puts the reader in complete confusion concerning the meaning of words, especially words referring to Jesus. How can 'the Lord' sometimes refer to Jesus and sometimes to God? Jesus, in fact, is called in a very confusing manner through all the NT.
He is called Lord, God, the son of God, Christ, God's Christ, the son of man, son of David, son of Mary, and son of Joseph. Jesus cannot be logically God and God's son at the same time. He cannot be the son of God and the son of man at the same time. He cannot be the son of David, of Joseph, and of God together. With this series of illogicality, the NT cannot possibly be God's word.
Standing or Sitting?
In Acts and dozens of texts in the NT, Jesus is standing on God's right hand. But some texts in the NT say that he is sitting, e.g., Mark (16:19), and some others say that he is standing, e.g., Acts (7:56)
Seen or Unseen?
This disciple saw God and Jesus. But this claim contradicts other NT texts which say that God cannot be seen (John 1:18). This text also contradicts many other NT tests where Jesus is made one with God. Here God and Jesus, being sitting beside each other, are two distinct beings. Again, this is major confusion in the NT, which confuses God with Jesus. The NT makes it impossible for the reader to know specifically the identity or nature of Jesus or God.
Paul and the Gentile
In Acts (9:15), Jesus says to Paul, "…Bear my name before the Gentiles."
But this contradicts what Jesus says to his disciples in Matthew (10:5), "Go not into the way of the Gentiles." The Gentiles are the nations outside the people of Israel.
In the NT, there are dozens of texts that emphasize that Jesus was sent to the people of Israel only. In contrast, there are dozens of texts that say that Jesus was sent to all nations and the world.
The truth is that Jesus was sent to the people of Israel only. But the point is not this, here at least. The point is that the NT rule is apparently this: every NT sentence is often contradicted by some another NT sentence. The NT fails to give you the truth about anything because of its frequent inner contradictions.
Peter and the Dead
Peter, as reported in Acts (9:40-42), gave life to dead Tabitha. But this "sudden ability of Peter contradicts Matthew (17:16), where the disciples were reported to be unable to cure a lunatic person. If they were unable to cure the sick, would they be able to quicken the dead?
God's Word or Peter's Dream?
In Acts (10-16), Peter was hungry and fell into a trance. In his sleep, he saw a great sheet full of all kinds of animals and heard a voice from heaven, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat. What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." (Acts 10:13-15).
That was Peter's dream; I repeat 'dream'. This Peterian dream was the basis of allowing Christians to eat pork, already disallowed in the NT. In the NT, dreams are made sources of legislation and, more astonishingly, God's word! With Peter's dream, Moses' law was cancelled!
Peter's Word
Some NT statements tell us very clearly that the NT is anybody's word. Peter (Acts 15:19) says, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God." Here, Peter is referring to exempting the non-Jews, i.e., the Gentiles, from circumcision, whereas the Jews had to be circumcised. The text makes it clear that this is Peter's word. Put aside the double - standard legislation: no circumcision of the non-Jews and circumcision of the Jews. Certainly such legislation is not God's word or ordainment.
The Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit?
Confusion in the NT does not include the Father and the Son only, but stretches to the Holy Spirit also. This Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to as the Holy Ghost (Acts 15:28), whose function is not made clear in the NT and may sometimes cover anything.
In Acts (15:28), Peter says, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us …" He is referring to the council's decision to exempt the Gentiles from circumcision and to limit prohibitions to only four: fornication to idols, blood, strangled animals, and fornication. The striking thing in this text (15:28) is that Pater speaks on behalf of the Holy Ghost. How could Pater know that the decision was good to the Holy Ghost? The decision was utterly the council's; why was the Holy Ghost involved here?
Prophet after John the Baptist
John the Baptist said, "They should believe in him which should come after me, that is, in Christ Jesus." (Acts 19:4).Notice here how the text is played with and corrupted. The explanation "that is, in Christ Jesus" is obviously a later interpolation, not said by John, but added later by writers or translators. If you say that a text is God's word, you cannot simply add what you wish to it, not for any reason, not even an explanation.
The other specially significant point here is the falsity of the interpolated explanation. Jesus did not come after John the Baptist; he was contemporary to him. Historically, both were God's messengers simultaneously. The evidence to this comes from the NT itself (Matthew 3:13-15), where each of them insisted to be baptized by the other. If Jesus had not been God's messenger at that time, John would not have had the need to be baptized by him. The text (Matthew 3:14) proves that Jesus and John were both God's messengers at that time and place.
Therefore, the messenger prophesied by John the Baptist here cannot be Jesus. This prophecy foretold the coming of Prophet Muhammad, whose mission is prophesied in dozens of texts in the OT and the NT. But the Church, which boasts of the Bible as God's word although it includes at least 30000 errors, deliberately hides the truth or does not see it.
Paul's Mission:
Paul, a Jew most hating to Jesus and his followers, suddenly received Jesus' order to spread Jesus' word to the Gentiles, as Paul claims. All that was in a vision, another daydream (Acts 26:19). Paul tells his story three times in the NT in three different versions and, as usual, inconsistently: Acts 9:1-10, Acts 22:6-12, Acts 26: 12-19.
No More Red
Skimming the NT pages beyond the four gospels, starting from Acts, you rarely see any red lines. The editor says on the first page of the NT that Jesus' words will appear in red ink. There is almost no red ink beyond the four gospels in the NT.
In the copy of King James Version before me, the red lines from p. 108, the Acts beginning, to p.236, the NT end, total a one-page equivalent. In other words, Jesus' words here are one page out of 124 pages, i.e., less than 1%. That is Jesus' words, but where are God's words?
In the gospel part of the NT (pp. 1-108), the red lines are about 30%. But, again, these, if true, are Jesus' words. Still the question stands: Where are God's words?
The maximal extent one may go to is to say that the NT includes Jesus' words. But, even with this concession, the percentage of Jesus' words does not exceed 15% of the whole NT, 30% of the gospel part (pp. 1-108), and 1% of the remaining part (pp. 108-236). The percentage of God's word in the NT is zero.
The NT, thus, consists of the following components : zero% for God's word, 15% for Jesus' word, and 85% for writers' words. Can you call a book structured as such God's word, even if you consider Jesus' words as equivalent to God's words?
Was Jesus Sent to Be Crucified?
One of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is that Jesus died and allowed the shedding of his blood for the sake of granting forgiveness to people. In other words, Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. Let us investigate this topic from the Bible, and find out whether Jesus was sent to be crucified or was crucified:
1.Willingness of Jesus Christ to Die for Our Sins
Peter and the two sons of Zebedee were with Jesus Christ before the elders of the people and the chief priests came to take him to crucify him. Jesus, at this point, talked to Peter and the two sons of Zebedee as in Matthew 26:38 "Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me." Then Jesus went a little further away from them and prayed to God as in Matthew 26:39: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
It is very clear from the above verse in Matthew 26:39 that Jesus had no intention of dying. In this verse it is shown that Jesus was praying strongly (Matthew mentions that Jesus repeated this prayer three times) to have this death removed from him. Had Jesus Christ been sent to be crucified he would not have hesitated to be killed at all. When I related this to my Christian colleagues, they told me that this hesitation comes from the flesh side of him (in other words he was tempted), and that his soul which is godly does not have this hesitation at all. When we look at Matthew 26:38 we see that Jesus is contradicting this idea by saying, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death" (Matthew 26:38). He himself says that it is really his soul that is hesitating and not his body. These are Jesus' own words.
2.God Answered the Prayers of Jesus Christ
After Jesus made the above-mentioned prayer, he was answered by God according to Hebrews 5:7: "…who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." These words clearly show that when Jesus was praying strongly to God, God granted him his request. The phrase "heard in that he feared" (Hebrews 5:7) means God granted him what he requested. So the above verse shows that when Jesus asked of God to "let this cup pass from" (Matthew26:39) him, God responded to his prayer and saved him from death or crucifixion.
3.The Post Crucifixion Prophesied Events Never Happened
When the people asked Jesus Christ if he would show them a sign, He replied by saying that the only sign they should expect is the sign of Jonas. Jesus also made sure to specify exactly what this sign was. The details are shown in the following verses:
- Matthew 12:38 "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee."
- Matthew 12:39 "But he answered and said unto them, an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas."
- Matthew 12:40 " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Here Jesus emphasized what would happen to him by specifically saying that he would be like Jonas in terms of the number of days and nights he would be in the heart of the earth, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Now let us see if this prophecy came to pass.
Jesus was allegedly crucified on Friday, this is certainly known among all Christians, and that is the reason for calling that Friday by "Good Friday." Jesus was buried on Friday night. Now let us start counting:
1. Friday night Jesus was buried. This is night number 1.
2. Saturday day Jesus was still in the grave. This is day number 1.
3. Saturday night Jesus was still in the grave. This is night number 2.
Mary Magdalene went to see Jesus early in the morning before sun rise, after the Sabbath(Saturday) and he was not there. The following verses relate this event:
- Mark 16:1 "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."
- Mark 16:2 "And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun."
- Mark16:3 "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher?"
- Mark 16:4 "And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."
- Mark 16:5 "And entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted."
- Mark 16:6 "And he saith unto them, be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him."
The number of days and nights that Jesus had spent in the heart of the earth is 1 day and 2 nights. This clearly challenges what Jesus had prophesied. When I told this to my Christian colleagues, some of them responded by saying that what Jesus wanted to really say was that he would be gone for awhile, and not that he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. This is clearly not the case. Had Jesus meant that, he would have said it, but it is clear that he wanted the people to know that this was a sign (miracle) and that it would be like Jonas' sign, and that he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. These were his own words.
Why Would Jesus Have to Die on the Cross?
According to the Christian doctrine, Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. The idea here is that every human is born with sins, or that all humans will sin, and therefore it was necessary that someone as pure as Jesus would be the crucified to nullify these sins. The question is: Why does anyone have to die for our sins when God, the All-Merciful, could as easily give us forgiveness if we ask for it? Isn't God the one who makes the rules? Why does He have to make someone suffer for our sins or for someone else's sins? Isn't that unjust of Him? According to the Bible the way to redemption could be obtained without the need for sacrifice.
The Bible says:
- Ezekiel 18:20 " The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
- Ezekiel 18:21 " But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die."
Clearly the soul that sins shall die. Clearly that no one shall bear the iniquity (sins) of others. So Jesus cannot bear the sins of others either. If one is righteous then it shall be upon him, and if one commits a sin then it shall be upon him, and not on Jesus. Finally, the way to repentance and forgiveness is by turning from all sins, doing what is right, and keeping the commandments.
Also, we see the same message given by Solomon. He says in the book of Ecclesiastes 12:13, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." This is the whole message, and this is the conclusion of messages. It is that one should fear God, and keep the commandments, and nothing else.
Again in 2 Chronicles 7:14, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." This clearly states that to seek forgiveness from God we have to humble ourselves, pray and seek God, and turn away from wickedness.
Finally, the Bible says in Samuel 15:22: "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." This clearly states that obeying God is better than sacrifice whether this sacrifice is of objects, animals, or humans, or any other type. What God likes is for us to heed and obey Him, and if that is what God likes then it is not of Him to come later and change His mind, and change His ways. God says in the Holy Qur'an, " Verily God is All-Knowing, All-Wise." (Ch 9: 28)
Now that we have seen this, Christians say that Jesus has changed some of these laws. Let's look at what Jesus says in Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Jesus clearly states that he was not sent to abolish the law, the law of which had already existed. So what is mentioned above cannot be discounted. Then Jesus continues to say, in Matthew 5:18 and 19, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus here states that not even as much as a dot (tittle) shall pass from the law. Every thing is kept the way it was. That is why the previous laws cannot be removed or discarded, and those who willfully change these laws, "he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
The Islamic and Christian Views of Jesus: a Comparison
The person of Jesus or Isa in Arabic (peace be upon him) is of great significance in both Islam and Christianity. However, there are differences in terms of beliefs about the nature and life occurrences of this noble Messenger.
Source of information about Jesus in Islam .
Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the Qur'an.
The Qur'an was revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and memorized and written down in his lifetime.
Today, anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim believes in the complete authenticity of the Qur'an as the original revealed guidance from God.
Source of information about Jesus in Christianity
Christians take their information about Jesus from the Bible, which includes the Old and New Testaments.
These contain four biblical narratives covering the life and death of Jesus. They have been written, according to tradition, respectively by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are placed at the beginning of the New Testament and comprise close to half of it.
Encyclopedia Britannica notes that "none of the sources of his life and work can be traced to Jesus himself; he did not leave a single known written word. Also, there are no contemporary accounts written of his life and death. What can be established about the historical Jesus depends almost without exception on Christian traditions, especially on the material used in the composition of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which reflect the outlook of the later church and its faith in Jesus.
Below are the views of Islam and Christianity based on primary source texts and core beliefs.
Islam
1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? Yes.
Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.
The Qur'an says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:
"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning away!" (Quran 5:75).
2. Do Muslims believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? Yes.
Like Christians, Muslims believe Mary, Maria in Spanish, or Maryam as she is called in Arabic, was a chaste, virgin woman, who miraculously gave birth to Jesus.
"Relate in the Book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family, to a place in the East. She screened herself from them; then We sent to her Our spirit (angel Gabriel) and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: I seek refuge from you in God Most Gracious (come not near) if you do fear God. He said: Nay, I am only a Messenger from your Lord, to announce to you the gift of a pure son. She said: How shall I have a son, when no man has ever touched me, and I am not unchaste? He said: So it will be, your Lord says: 'That is easy for Me; and We wish to appoint him as a sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It was a matter so decreed" (Qur'an 19:16-21).
3. Do Muslims believe Jesus had a miraculous birth? Yes.
The Qur'an says: "She (Mary) said: 'O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.' He (God) said: 'So (it will be) for God creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: 'Be!'- and it is" (3:47(.
It should also be noted about his birth that: "Verily, the likeness of Jesus in God's Sight is the likeness of Adam. He (God) created him from dust, then (He) said to him: 'Be!'-and he was" (Qura'n 3:59).
4. Do Muslims believe Jesus spoke in the cradle? Yes.
"Then she (Mary) pointed to him. They said: 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' He (Jesus) said: 'Verily! I am a slave of God, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet; " (19:29-30(.
5. Do Muslims believe he performed miracles? Yes.
Muslims, like Christians believe Jesus performed miracles. But these were performed by the will and permission of God, Who has power and control over all things.
"Then will God say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! recount My favor to you and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit (the angel Gabriel) so that you did speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel. And behold: you make out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and you breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by My leave, and you heal those born blind, and the lepers by My leave. And behold! you bring forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the children of Israel from (violence to you) when you did show them the Clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic'" (5:110).
6. Do Muslims believe in the Trinity? No.
Muslims believe in the Absolute Oneness of God, Who is a Supreme Being free of human limitations, needs and wants. He has no partners in His Divinity. He is the Creator of everything and is completely separate from His creation.
God says in the Qur'an regarding the Trinity:
"People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: 'God is a Trinity.' Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. God is sufficient for a guardian" (Quran 4:171).
7. Do Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God? No.
"Say: "God is Unique! God, the Source [of everything]. He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered, and there is nothing comparable to Him!" (Quran 112:1-4).
The Qur'an also states: "Such was Jesus, the son of Mary; it is a statement of truth, about which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the majesty of God, that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be' and it is" (Qur'an 9: 34-35).
8. Do Muslims believe Jesus was killed on the cross then resurrected? No.
"And because of their saying, 'We killed Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God'- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely they killed him not (Jesus, son of Mary). But God raised him (Jesus) up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And God is ever All-Powerful, All-Wise" (Quran 4:157-158).
Christianity
1. Do Christians believe Jesus was a human being and Messenger of God? Yes & No.
With the exception of Unitarian Christians, who like all the early followers of Jesus, still do not believe in the Trinity, most Christians now believe in the Divinity of Jesus, which is connected to the belief in Trinity. They say he is the second member of the Triune God, the Son of the first part of the Triune God, and at the same time "fully" God in every respect.
2. Do Christians believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? Yes.
A chaste and pious human woman who gave birth to Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity, the Son of God, and at the same time "fully" God Almighty in every respect.
Christians believe however, that while she was a virgin, she was married to a man named Joseph (Bible: Matthew:1:18). According to Matthew 1:25, Joseph "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus".
3. Do Christians believe he had a miraculous birth? Yes.
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (Bible: Matthew 1:18).
4. Do Christians believe he performed miracles? Yes.
"And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretches out thy hand to heal, and sign and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus (Bible: Acts 4:30).
Christians believe that Jesus performed these miracles because he was the Son of God as well as the incarnation of God.
5. Do Christians believe in the Trinity? Yes.
With the exception of the Unitarian Christians, who do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, according to the Catholic encyclopedia, is the term used for the central doctrine of the Christian religion. The belief is that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons or beings are distinct from each another, while being similar in character: uncreated and omnipotent.
The First Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv).
The First Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that of all revealed truths, this is the most impenetrable to reason.
6 . Do Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God? Yes.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him (Bible: John 3:16).
However, it is interesting to note that the term "son of God" is used in other parts of the Bible to refer to Adam (Bible: Luke 3:38), Israel (Bible: Exodus 4:22) and David (Bible: Psalms 2:7) as well. The creatures of God are usually referred to in the Bible as children of God.
The role of Paul of Tarsus in shaping this belief and the belief in Trinity.
The notion of Jesus as son of God is something that was established under the influence of Paul of Tarsus (originally named Saul), who had been an enemy of Jesus, but later changed course and joined the disciples after the departure of Jesus.
Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to disciples like Barnabas, who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met with Jesus.
Paul is considered by a number of Christian scholars to be the father of Christianity due to his additions of the following ideas:
that Jesus is the son of God, the concept of Atonement, the renunciation of the Law of the Torah.
Paul did these things in hopes of winning over the Gentiles (non-Jewish people). His letters are another of the primary sources of information on Jesus according to the Christian tradition.
The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to reject the notion of the Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.
One person who was an original follower of Jesus was Barnabas. He was a Jew born in Cyrus and a successful preacher of the teachings of Jesus.
Because of his closeness to the Prophet, he was an important member of the small group of disciples in Jerusalem who had had gathered together following the disappearance of Jesus.
The question of Jesus's nature, origin and relationship with God was not raised amongst Barnabas and the small group of disciples. Jesus was considered a man miraculously endowed by God. Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life led them to modify this view.
The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 CE Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This indicates that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.
In 325 (CE), a council of Christian leaders met at Nicaea and made Paul's beliefs officially part of Christian doctrine. It also ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script which contradicted Paul's beliefs should be destroyed. An edict was issued that anyone in possession of these Gospels would be put to death.
The Gospel of Barnabas has miraculously survived though.
7 . Do Christians believe he was killed on the cross? Yes.
This is a core Christian belief and it relates to the concept of atonement. According to this belief, Jesus died to save mankind from sin. However, this is not stated explicitly in the four gospels which form the primary source texts of Christianity. It is found, however, in (Romans 6:8,9).
Christians believe Jesus was spat on, cut, humiliated, kicked, striped and finally hung up on the cross to endure a slow and painful death.
According, to Christian belief, the original sin of Adam and Eve of eating from the forbidden tree was so great that God could not forgive it by simply willing it, rather it was necessary to erase it with the blood of a sinless, innocent Jesus.
Resurrection
The four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul are the main sources of Christianity which discuss the Resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion.
According to St. Matthew, Jesus appeared to the holy women, and again on a mountain in Galilee. Mark's Gospel tells a different story: Jesus was seen by Mary Magdalene, by the two disciples at Emmaus, and the Eleven before his Ascension into heaven.
Luke's Gospel says Jesus walked with the disciples to Emmaus, appeared to Peter and to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem. In John's Gospel, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday, to the Eleven a week later, and to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias.
Another account of the resurrection by St. Paul is found in (Bible: Corinthians 15: 3-8).
According to Christian belief, Resurrection is a manifestation of God's justice, Who exalted Christ to a life of glory, as Christ had humbled Himself unto death (Phil., 2: 8-9). This event also completes the mystery of Christian salvation and redemption. The death of Jesus frees believers from sin, and with his resurrection, he restores to them the most important privileges lost by sin (Bible: Romans 4:25).
More importantly, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus indicates Christian acknowledgment of Christ as the immortal God, the cause of believers' own resurrection (Bible: I Corinthians 4: 21; Phil., 3:20-21), as well as the model and the support of a new life of grace (Bible: Romans 4: 4-6; 9-11)
Question:
I read in the newspaper that 15% of the Koran is about Jesus Christ; and I also read in the English version of Koran that Mohammad believe in Christ, Abraham, The prophets and their writings which preceded Koran. If so, why does the Koran accept some doctrines of the bible, like the miracles of Christ, his sinlessness, being a prophet, etc. and contradict many of its doctrines like the deity of Christ as written in Isa.9:6 & John 1:1, 3:16, and the atonement both in the old and new testaments?
If the Koran is without error, why are there sects in Islam? Why does the Koran allows polygamy, while the Bible is against it as written in Gen. 2:24 & Matt. 19:5 ? My soul needs THE TRUTH.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly: Allaah often mentions the Messiah 'Eesa ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary) in His Book the Qur'aan for a number of reasons, including the following:
1. He is one of His Prophets, indeed he is one of the Messengers of strong will whom He sent to His creation and His slaves. It is obligatory to believe in him as in all the other Prophets, as enjoined by Allaah in the verse (interpretation of the meaning): "Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allaah and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down to Ibraaheem (Abraham), Ismaa'eel (Ishmael), Ishaaq (Isaac), Ya'qoob (Jacob), and to Al-Asbaat [the offspring of the twelve sons of Ya'qoob (Jacob)], and that which has been given to Moosa (Moses) and 'Eesa (Jesus), and that which has been given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted (in Islam)" [al-Baqarah 2:36]
2. The first people whom we should be concerned about when calling others to Islam are the People of the Book, i.e., the Jews and the Christians, because they are the closest of later nations to whom the later Messengers were sent. Both the Jews and the Christians knew of the coming of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his attributes were written in their books, the Tawraat (Torah) and Injeel (Gospel). So they should not deny what they find in their books and they should hasten to believe in him, because they already believe in the Messengers who came before him, unlike other nations who worshipped idols. Because they did not believe in the Last Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as they were enjoined to do, they had to be refuted and shown how they had distorted the message of divine Oneness (Tawheed). This is why they are frequently mentioned in the verses of the Qur'aan.
3. Tawheed (the Oneness of God) is the basic principle upon which everything else, both religious and worldly affairs, is to be built; through Tawheed people will be saved from Hell and admitted to Paradise. This means affirming that Allaah is One. We see that the Jews and Christians differed concerning Jesus Son of Mary 'Eesa ibn Maryam'. The Jews said that he was a charlatan who told lies about God, so he had to be killed.
The Christians differed from them greatly; some of them said that he was God, and some of them said that he was the son of God, but was one with Him in the Trinity, so that outwardly he appeared to be the son of God but he was in fact God. And some of them said that he was the third person of the Trinity which is a rejection of Tawheed. Others said that he was a Messenger from God and was human like the rest of mankind, but that Allaah singled him out to perform miracles in order to establish proof against people.
The last group are the ones who were right. So it was essential to explain the matter and describe 'Eesa in befitting terms. As with all the other Prophets and Messengers, it is not inappropriate to say that he was a human being, created from clay, whom Allaah chose from among all of mankind to be created without a father, as a manifestation of the power of Allaah to create a man outside the usual means. The likeness of 'Eesa before Allaah is like Adam, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "Verily, the likeness of 'Eesa (Jesus) before Allaah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: 'Be!' - and he was"[Aal 'Imraan 3:59]
This is the correct belief concerning the creation of the Prophet of Allaah 'Eesa, which was a miracle for all the people to see.
But the miracle of Adam's creation is greater. For 'Eesa (peace be upon him) was created without a father, but Adam was created without a father or a mother, and this is more expressive of the power of Allaah to create; it is more miraculous than the creation of 'Eesa (peace be upon him). For all these reasons and others, it was essential to explain the issue of 'Eesa (peace be upon him) and put matters straight.
In conclusion, the miracles which Allaah gave to 'Eesa (peace be upon him) were just like the miracles of all the other Prophets, to prove that he was speaking the truth and that he was truly a Messenger from Allaah. But those who distorted the religion confused the matter for the simple-minded people and used his miracles as a justification to say that he was the son of God or that he was God! All of that is a distortion of the teachings and message of the Messiah (peace be upon him).
If everyone who follows a Prophet were to take the miracles which Allaah bestowed upon him as a sign that he was a god, then all the Prophets would be gods and each Prophet would be different from the others. For the mountains glorified Allaah along with Dawood (David - peace be upon him), but they did not do so with 'Eesa. The sea was parted for Moosa (Moses - peace be upon him) and he spoke with his Lord and his Lord spoke with him, so he was known as Kaleem-Allaah (the one who spoke with Allaah), but this did not happen to 'Eesa (peace be upon him). Allaah flooded the earth in response to the supplication of Nooh (Noah - peace be upon him) and that did not happen to 'Eesa (peace be upon him). Allaah singled out Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to speak to him and to protect his miracle from being lost or distorted; he alone was sent to all of mankind, and he was given miracles that were not given to 'Eesa. So how could that be taken to mean that they were all gods?
Secondly:
With regard to the view that if the Qur'aan were not distorted there would not be all these many sects and groups.
The answer to that is that the Qur'aan cannot force people to choose the right path, because the Qur'aan is simply guidance (and it is up to people to choose). Allaah has warned us about these sects and groups, and He has forbidden us to imitate the nations who became divided in religious matters. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "and be not of Al?Mushrikoon (the polytheists, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah), of those who split up their religion (i.e. who left the true Islamic Monotheism), and became sects, [i.e. they invented new things in the religion (Bid'ah), and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it" [al-Room 30:31-32]. "And be not as those who divided and differed among themselves after the clear proofs had come to them. It is they for whom there is an awful torment" [Aal 'Imraan 3:105]
Allaah has commanded them to adhere to His Book and to follow the Sunnah (way, path) of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as He says (interpretation of the meanings): "And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allaah (i.e. this Qur'aan), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allaah's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allaah makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided" [Aal 'Imraan 3:103]. "O you who believe! Make not (a decision) in advance before Allaah and His Messenger, and fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing" [al-Hujuraat 49:1] i.e., do not say or do anything that goes against the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
What is meant here is that Allaah forbade the people to split into various groups, and He commanded them to be united, but they followed their own whims and desires, and they cast the Book of Allaah behind their backs, and if they were confused about a verse from the Book of Allaah, they did not refer to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in order to understand it, rather they let their own opinion and corrupt reasoning be the judge. All of that is not from the Qur'aan and not from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Thirdly:
With regard to the question about plural marriage in Islam and its being forbidden in the New Testament, it should be noted that Allaah gave each Messenger his own laws and path. Allaah enjoined Tawheed (belief in the Oneness of Allaah) upon every single Prophet whom He sent, but the laws varied and some of them abrogated others. Some things that were permissible at the time of Adam (peace be upon him) were abrogated at the time of Nooh (peace be upon him).
The laws that existed at the time of Moosa (Moses - peace be upon him) were partially abrogated at the time of 'Eesa (Jesus - peace be upon him), as Allaah tells us (interpretation of the meaning): "To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way"[al-Maa'idah 5:48]
So once this is understood, we will realize that plural marriage did not exist only in the law of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), rather it existed in the laws of all the previous Prophets. For example, Ya'qoob (Jabob - peace be upon him) had two wives and was married to two sisters at the same time, according to the Old Testament, as it says in the Book of Genesis 29:15-35.
The father of the Prophets, Ibraaheem (Abraham - peace be upon him) was also married to two women, Haajar (Hagar) and Saara (Sarah). The Old Testament mentions that the Prophet of Allaah Dawood (David) had seventy or ninety-nine wives, and Sulaymaan (Solomon) had one hundred wives. These and other examples demonstrate that each of the Prophets implemented the laws that Allaah had prescribed.
Plural marriage is not only for this ummah (nation - i.e., the Muslims). The fact that the Christians do not allow it may be for two reasons:
1 - This is one of the laws of Allaah which was binding before the time of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
2 - They introduced their own innovation and went to extremes in this matter, as in the case of monasticism which they invented and which was not prescribed for them, but they sought to earn the pleasure of Allaah thereby.
We ask Allaah to guide you and to help you find the true religion, which is Islam, and the path of the Prophet of Mercy (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) according to the understanding of his noble Companions. And Allaah is the Guide to the Straight Path