To Agentxxx, debating the alleged Quran contradictions

agentxxx

Peace Ahmed,
First of all I would like to tell you a little bit about myself, as I said in my other thread by the grace of God I am a Muslim, but i want to asertain the truth and now i dont believe in blindfaith due to my past experiences.I was raised in a extremely religiously conservative family where to question any aspect of religion was considered blasphemy. And that was my belief for 27 years or so. I believed in all the traditions and rituals which are practiced in Pakistan, since my paternal side of the family is Shia and my maternal side of the family Sunni, I was believing and practicing a combination of both, I was performing salat like the sunnis and performing every ritual during the month of muharram like the shias . I was fortunate in the sense that there were no extremist in the family and there were never any serious debates or arguments and still we are extremely close to one another.
My belief was that Quran is a book that has solutions for every problem and every thing is mentioned in it, and I mean EVERY THING, since I had read Quran in Arabic only without understand what it says . I believed in the interpretation of the shia/sunni mullahs, I was against the wahabis because I was told that they say ?Muhammad was a man like us? on the contrary I believed he and his family were made of noor and God created the universe for Muhammad and his family, to think other wise was blasphemy. Muhammad ranked above all the other prophets, and
I would not touch any book written in Arabic without at least washing my hands and never did I touched the holy Quran without a bath and wudu, such was my belief and I was ready to kill or die for my beliefs.
In the Ramadan of 2003, I decided to read Quran and the books of hadiths in my own language. I started with Bukhari, the history of Islam by ibn a khuldoon and the history of khalifs by jala-ud-din sayoti, some of the hadiths were absolutely absurd and had no logic but still I would not discuss them in a negative way. Then finally I started reading Quran and found out that my beliefs were in contradiction to what Quran was saying. I was also disappointed due to the fact that it was not what I had imagined all my life it would be. It contained the excellent code of ethics, but many other things were very confusing for me. I tried to discuss it with the shia/sunni mullahs and they shunned me, and advised me to simply follow the footsteps of my father or else I will become an infidel. I started searching for answers through the Internet, this is when I first came across this site ?answering-Islam? there was a list of the said discrepancies which I downloaded and started checking them in the Quran, and to my surprise most of them were exactly like what they had said and that made me more confused. I gave the reference of this site when I posted the alleged contradictions.
I am not a scholar and I do not have any answers to all these alleged discrepancies, so I joined this forum to find out the answer, this is the reason why all my threads may seem like a criticism on Quran, but I am doing this for my own understanding, and I want to exhaust all my ifs, buts and whys. Now to be honest I am at the moment skeptical about Quran? Not to the extant of calling it a book of lies but because it comes to us through the same people/rulers who fabricated hadith for purpose of their own, it cannot be ruled out that it is not possible for them to fiddle with some of the verses to fulfill their own purpose. Also keep in mind my friend that English is not my mother language and some times I might not use the appropriate words to explain myself, please ignore such faults of mine.
Also I am a bit busy now a days with marriages in the family so this is marriage season and I might not be able to reply you in time during the next few days, please excuse me for that too.
Will get in touch soon.
Thanks.

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

Peace mate,

First of all I would like to tell you a little bit about myself, as I said in my other thread by the grace of God I am a Muslim,

sorry for my sus bro, but I have been fooled many times before so I thought i ask you straightaway

but i want to asertain the truth and now i dont believe in blindfaith due to my past experiences.

that's the way bro, and I never believed in anything blindfolded sionce i was a child

I was raised in a extremely religiously conservative family where to question any aspect of religion was considered blasphemy.

I was raised in an enviroment quite the opposite but I always asked myself and i never asked anyone, to a degree I managed to find most of the answers myself if not all the answers indeed, years and years of hard work that i enjoyed

And that was my belief for 27 years or so. I believed in all the traditions and rituals which are practiced in Pakistan, since my paternal side of the family is Shia and my maternal side of the family Sunni,

never believed in traditions and rituals as a source of religion, in fact the Quran warns indirectly against folowing the parents blindly, my parents are sunni though but they never taught me anything about religion, I was free to do whatever, but I never called myself a sunni and when asked since i was 13 years old, i always responded with wonder in what they mean? as I portrayed myself as just a muslim

I was believing and practicing a combination of both, I was performing salat like the sunnis and performing every ritual during the month of muharram like the shias .

I was only doing salat and fasting ranadan as I learnt it as school, I'm ok with the sunni method of prayer, just the shahada in it bothers me as I consider the shahada "Shirk"

I was fortunate in the sense that there were no extremist in the family and there were never any serious debates or arguments and still we are extremely close to one another.

great, but for me I was more involved in debating my chrsitian friends as I was raised in a christian packed suburb, in fact once I wanted to marry a christian and her family refused because I'm a muslim, lol

My belief was that Quran is a book that has solutions for every problem and every thing is mentioned in it, and I mean EVERY THING,

this concept of everything should be mentioned in the Quran is flawed bro, this is not a general statement that you will find everything in it, rather everything that is required to pass this hard test we are going through, I will show you later that Allah said the same about the Torah that He included in it EVERYTHING. actually you can read it 6154, allah clearly says that the Torah was revealed to Moses to explain EVERYTHING

since I had read Quran in Arabic only without understand what it says .

what's the point then if you don't understand it?

this is Bid'ah bro i.e a human made non sense, you don't need to read it in arabic if you donlt understand arabic, you read the Quran in the language you understand

I believed in the interpretation of the shia/sunni mullahs,

many mistakes will be found bro, you can't take what the humans say for granted, including the hadith of any prophet

I was against the wahabis because I was told that they say ?Muhammad was a man like us? on the contrary I believed he and his family were made of noor

sorry I have to laugh

lol lol lol

sorry again

and God created the universe for Muhammad and his family, to think other wise was blasphemy. Muhammad ranked above all the other prophets, and

laughing again

lol lol lol

sorry again

I would not touch any book written in Arabic without at least washing my hands and never did I touched the holy Quran without a bath and wudu, such was my belief and I was ready to kill or die for my beliefs.

this is very strange bro, only the Quran that deserve that not any other book, I owuld say that is Indorect Shirk

regarding death for the faith, yes I'm one of those I will die for it and I will be willing to kill anyone who wants to kill me because of my faith, it is written in the Quran

In the Ramadan of 2003, I decided to read Quran and the books of hadiths in my own language. I started with Bukhari, the history of Islam by ibn a khuldoon and the history of khalifs by jala-ud-din sayoti, some of the hadiths were absolutely absurd and had no logic but still I would not discuss them in a negative way.

lol , bro you are right and I read all the hadith books and still reading it and gathering information, I read all the following bro in arabic

Bukhari
Muslim
Ahmed
Ibn Mageh
Malik
Tirmezy
Niss'ee
Ibi Dawood
Al Darmy

and you are right bro they are filled with non sense, crap, contradictions and more, but I can't deny there is also many good ones that runs in harmony with the Quran, i.e. those good ones have been quialified by the Quran and can be accepted as an explaination according to 2129, 2151, 3164, 1644, and 1664

Then finally I started reading Quran and found out that my beliefs were in contradiction to what Quran was saying. I was also disappointed due to the fact that it was not what I had imagined all my life it would be.

I guess you should have been happy not disappointed

It contained the excellent code of ethics, but many other things were very confusing for me.

lol , true bro, but believe me by time every letter in the Quran will make sense as sent by Allah the All Knowing, this book has treuly took me by a surprise because I'm a native arabic speaker and I can read it in arabic clearly but I can't comprhend that a human can write this mazing book, it just impossible after I read over 15 times in 25 years thoroughly

and over time my understanding started to become near perfect and what I mean by perfection is what I need to pass the test in this short life

I tried to discuss it with the shia/sunni mullahs and they shunned me, and advised me to simply follow the footsteps of my father or else I will become an infidel.

Haha, that is what they do with me, but I tell you bro, I'm not typical and I fight back they BS, I even accuse them bluntly of shirk and I did the same with my parents, my brother and many of my family members ad well my friends and I will continue doing it and my strength is incleasing by time

I had a debate a 3 weeks ago with professor in religion who runs one of the islamic radio station and I went there with many who were intested to see it and I tell you bro it went too sore, lol lol we spent about 6 hours debating and i accused him of shirk and he accused me of kufr lol

I started searching for answers through the Internet, this is when I first came across this site ?answering-Islam? there was a list of the said discrepancies which I downloaded and started checking them in the Quran, and to my surprise most of them were exactly like what they had said and that made me more confused. I gave the reference of this site when I posted the alleged contradictions.

bro I know this web site for long time now, it is full of BS for sure however I will show you how all these alleged contradictions are refuted fair and square

I am not a scholar and I do not have any answers to all these alleged discrepancies,

neither I'm, I'm actually a comuter engineer as well a civil/structral engineer, but always was fascinated by religions since I was 13 years old and I have all the logical answers that will refute all these allegations, just be patient with me please, because it is all about presenting it for ease of understanding

so I joined this forum to find out the answer, this is the reason why all my threads may seem like a criticism on Quran, but I am doing this for my own understanding, and I want to exhaust all my ifs, buts and whys.

Inshaallah I will give you clear answers that will satisfy you

Now to be honest I am at the moment skeptical about Quran? Not to the extant of calling it a book of lies but because it comes to us through the same people/rulers who fabricated hadith for purpose of their own,

bro don't let Satan exploit your weakness of not having the knowledge, just hang in there and by time everything will be cleared, it is yuor right to doubt the Quran as requested by the Quran, so you are doing nothing wrong, but I just want you to consider the other external force that you can't see it, "satan and his progney" and that is their main objecitve bro to flaw as many humans as they can when it comes to the faith, they have the ability to make the bad look good, trust me, i fight the bastards everyday in my life

it cannot be ruled out that it is not possible for them to fiddle with some of the verses to fulfill their own purpose.

of course it can be ruled out and we can use logic to rule it out, but you have to knw that the enemy of God will always try to mock the Quran, they know its strength and they want as much as they can to reject it

Also keep in mind my friend that English is not my mother language and some times I might not use the appropriate words to explain myself, please ignore such faults of mine.

I reckon your english is better than mine, especially my spelling is horrible bro lol

Also I am a bit busy now a days with marriages in the family so this is marriage season and I might not be able to reply you in time during the next few days, please excuse me for that too.
Will get in touch soon.
Thanks.

no worries take your time, I will respond to Mary the Sister of Aaron alegation in my next comment

peace be with you

unknownuser

Hello agentxxx

Alleged Contradicting # 2

In many places, the Qur'an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur'an has confused Jesus' mother with Aaron's sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur'an indicates that Mary (Christ's mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron (chapter 192 and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 6612). Their mother was called "the wife of Imran" (chapter 335) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron.

?O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste?

(2

?And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants).?

(12)

?Behold! a woman of 'Imran said "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service So accept this of me For Thou hearest and knowest all things."?

(35)

Ahmed says

Alleged contradiction merit and rationale 30 %

The reason I give it 30% merit is the confusion resulted from the literal meaning of ?Sister?, however it was only mentioned one time NOT many as stated in the contradiction, also 1928 NEVER STATED THAT MARY IS THE BIOLOGICAL SISTER TO AARON.

We know the literal meaning of ?? is ?Sister?, but it is also a common knowledge that all Muslims are brothers and sisters as stated in the Quran, this is also obvious as you see mulsims calling strangers brother or sister, i.e. they are brothers and sisters in FAITH, let?s look at a few verses from the Quran

?The Believers are but a single Brotherhood So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.?

(10)

-> Can?t be clearer than that my friend, verse 4910 clearly says ? The Believers are but a single Brotherhood?

?But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.?

(11)

-> We can read in 911 that the wrong doers will be our brethren in faith if they ? repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity?

?And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you That ye may be guided.?

(103)

-> Here we see Allah is telling the believers not to divide their religion and hold fast all together, then Allah added ? so that by His Grace, ye became brethren? , i.e. all believers are brethren in faith.

?Verily spendthrifts are brothers of the Devils; and the Evil One is to his Lord (himself) ungrateful.?

(27)

-> In 1727 we can see the spendthrifts were described as the brothers of the Devils, But the devils are Jinns and the spendthrifts are Humans, they can?t be brothers for sure, obviously they are brothers because they share a belief ?regardless that belief is good or bad?

Now let?s see what other Muslims said regarding this alleged contradiction

Mary, Sister Of Aaron(P)?

The enemy of Islam have been calling Mary addressed as Sister of Aaron(P) a contradiction.

It turns out that Christians in Najran during the time of the Prophet(P) raised a similar objection and it was answered by the Prophet(P). In Sahih Muslim, the hadith related by Mughirah ibn Shu`bah says
When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me You read "O sister of Harun" (i.e. Maryam) in the Quran, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger(P) I asked him about that, whereupon he said The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them.

This claim of contradiction is apparently mistaken because it disregards both the Arabic idiom and the context of the verse. In Arabic the word akhun or ukhtun (Underlined with Red colour in the images) carries two meanings.

Blood brother or sister and
Brotherhood/sisterhood in clan and faith.

The above verse has used the word ukhtun in the second sense. This is not unusual as the Quran uses the same idiomatic expression in several earlier verses. In chapter 11 verse 78, Prophet Lot refers to the women folk of his community as my daughters.

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/quran/mary2.gif

?And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said "O my people! Here are my daughters they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man? "

In Chapter 7 verses 65, 73 and 85 Prophets Hud, Saleh and Shuaib(P) are referred to as "brothers" of their respective peoples.

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/quran/mary3.gif

?And unto (the tribe of) A'ad (We sent) their brother, Hud. He said O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other Allah save Him. Will ye not ward off (evil)? "

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/quran/mary4.gif

?And to (the tribe of) Thamud (We sent) their brother Salih. He said O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other Allah save Him. A wonder from your Lord hath come unto you. Lo! this is the camel of Allah, a token unto you; so let her feed in Allah's earth, and touch her not with hurt lest painful torment seize you. "

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/quran/mary5.gif

?And unto Midian (We sent) their brother, Shu'eyb. He said O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other Allah save Him. Lo! a clear proof hath come unto you from your Lord; so give full measure and full weight and wrong not mankind in their goods, and work not confusion in the earth after the fair ordering thereof. That will be better for you, if ye are believers. "

The people of Lot are also mentioned in chapter 50 verse 13 as the brothers of Lot except for the word "banatii" which means my daughters in 1178, all other references have used the word "akhun" which means brother.

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/quran/mary6.gif

?The 'Ad, Pharaoh, the brethren of Lut, "

George Sale in his translation of the Quran says

?From the identity of names it has been generally imagined by Christian writers that the Koran here confounds Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron; which intolerable anachronism, if it were certain, is sufficient of itself to destroy the pretended authority of this book. But though Mohammed may be supposed to have been ignorant enough in ancient history and chronology, to have committed so gross a blunder; yet I do not see how it can be made out from the words of the Koran. For it does not follow, because two persons have the same name, and have each a father and brother who bear the same names, that they must therefore necessarily be the same whereby it manifestly appears that Mohammed well knew and asserted that Moses preceded Jesus several ages.

And the commentators accordingly fail not to tell us, that there had passed about one thousand eight hundred years between Amran the father of Moses and Amrean the father of the Virgin Mary they also make them the sons of different persons; the first, they say, was the son of Yeshar, or Izhar (though he was really his brother) the son of Kahath, the son of Levi; and the other was the son of Matthan, whose genealogy they trace, but in a very corrupt and imperfect manner, up to David and thence to Adam. It must be observed that though the Virgin Mary is called in the Koran, the sister of Aaron, yet she is nowhere called the sister of Moses.? "

In the Bible, Elizabeth was called daughters of Aaron(P). Was she literally a daughter of Aaron?

?In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari'ah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.? "

Or Jesus(P) was addressed as Son of David in the Bible. Was he literally Son of David(P)?

?And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!"

?But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant;?

If we take that literally then it is also a contradiction in the Bible.
Reference
George Sale, The Koran, IX Edition of 1923, London, p. 38.

Thanks for reading

Ahmed Bahgat

agentxxx

Peace Ahmed,
You wrote

agentxxx wrote
I would not touch any book written in Arabic without at least washing my hands and never did I touched the holy Quran without a bath and wudu, such was my belief and I was ready to kill or die for my beliefs.
ab wrote
this is very strange bro, only the Quran that deserve that not any other book, I would say that is Indirect Shirk

This I found out only after reading the Quran in my own language, now I know that many things that I did, or believed, falls into the category of shirk, so I have stopped doing them.
Since we don?t understand Arabic, people due to respect for Quran would assume that any book/page in Arabic might contain Quranic verses, so they are extra careful, this is what we are fed since our childhood. You see brother Quran is something extremely sacred for the people of this region, they respect Quran to the extent of shirk I would say in many cases. Vast majority of people read it in Arabic daily but without ever trying to understand its meaning. Would you believe we always keep Quran in the upper shelves above our personal heights, and you are not supposed to sit or lay with your feet towards Quran or kaaba.
In the urban areas things are changing quite rapidly because of the electronic media, but our 70% of population lives in the rural areas and are mostly uneducated, a vast majority of people don?t even understand the meaning of sura fatiha, even though they might be performing salat 5 times a day. So you see brother I live in a society where belief is based on blind faith our teachers are the mullahs, 90% of them just know how to read Arabic and perform certain rituals and nothing else. Since they have no knowledge and cant give any logical answers, they say it is a sin to ask questions about religion which is very frustrating for our educated class.

ab wrote

And you are right bro they are filled with non sense, crap, contradictions and more, but I can't deny there is also many good ones that runs in harmony with the Quran,

you are right there are hundreds of them.

agentxxx wrote
I tried to discuss it with the shia/sunni mullahs and they shunned me, and advised me to simply follow the footsteps of my father or else I will become an infidel.
ab wrote
Haha, that is what they do with me, but I tell you bro, I'm not typical and I fight back they BS, I even accuse them bluntly of shirk and I did the same with my parents, my brother and many of my family members ad well my friends and I will continue doing it and my strength is incleasing by time

Brother, may be where you live it is easy to accuse the mullah, here they are very strong, they can have you arrested or incite others with blind faith to kill you.

agentxxx wrote
I started searching for answers through the Internet, this is when I first came across this site ?answering-Islam? there was a list of the said discrepancies which I downloaded and started checking them in the Quran, and to my surprise most of them were exactly like what they had said and that made me more confused. I gave the reference of this site when I posted the alleged contradictions.

ab wrote
bro I know this web site for long time now, it is full of BS for sure however I will show you how all these alleged contradictions are refuted fair and square

That is what I want brother, I want to know logical answers to all these alleged contradiction, please know that I am a novice and I am trying to understand my religion not through emotions and desires like I did in the past, but through rational understanding.

ab wrote
I reckon your english is better than mine, especially my spelling is horrible bro lol

I have to thank Microsoft word for this lol

Brother thank you very much for your replies to the contradictions, I have saved them and will read them as soon as I am free, I just came back from a wedding and I am very sleepy so bye for now.
God bless you and your Family.

unknownuser

Peace Ahmed,

Salam my friend

Since we don?t understand Arabic, people due to respect for Quran would assume that any book/page in Arabic might contain Quranic verses, so they are extra careful, this is what we are fed since our childhood.

Typical ignorance, non sense and brain washing, imagine now that one of those Arabic books you respected was promoting devil worshipping lol

You see brother Quran is something extremely sacred for the people of this region, they respect Quran to the extent of shirk I would say in many cases.

lol true bro but also they are clear cut hypocrites as well because they don't bloody apply it lol

would you reckon that stupidity is a result of Satan and his progeny influence?, I guess so bro

he did the same with all the Christians, all the Hindus and all the atheists and all the Jews

why he can't do the same with the Muslims?

aren't the Muslims the same humans?

I'm not blaming Satan though as you suggested before, rather I?m blaming the people who listened to his calls of evils, the Quran clearly stated that we can't blame them and this is logical because Allah has warned us big time from him in numerous locations in the Quran

Vast majority of people read it in Arabic daily but without ever trying to understand its meaning.

Haha, they better read it not then

the Quran clearly says when it is read we have to listen then we have to listen thorougly,

I bet you they try to understand songs and anasheed far better lol

Would you believe we always keep Quran in the upper shelves above our personal heights,

Of course i believe it because it happens in Egypt but I have no problem showing respect to the Quran so it makes a bit of sense to me, why not?

Isn't it the true and preserved words of our God?

and you are not supposed to sit or lay with your feet towards Quran or kaaba.

and that does not make any sense to me

In the urban areas things are changing quite rapidly because of the electronic media, but our 70% of population lives in the rural areas and are mostly uneducated, a vast majority of people don?t even understand the meaning of sura fatiha, even though they might be performing salat 5 times a day.

Egypt is not far behind, but somehow most of the Egyptians always try to rebel against ignorance

So you see brother I live in a society where belief is based on blind faith our teachers are the mullahs, 90% of them just know how to read Arabic and perform certain rituals and nothing else. Since they have no knowledge and cant give any logical answers, they say it is a sin to ask questions about religion which is very frustrating for our educated class.

sure it is frustrating however you can shut them up with numerous verses from the Quran that proves faith is not blind and we should use out intellect

Brother, may be where you live it is easy to accuse the mullah, here they are very strong, they can have you arrested or incite others with blind faith to kill you.

you are right here bro, and I'm blessed to leave that area and live abroad, I'm more Australian than Egyptian, while I still love Egypt and it runs in my blood but my loyalty to Australia "the closest to a Muslim government as I see it" has gained my respect and my loyalty ways more that I owe to Egypt

but the point is we should not fear the people, we only should fear Allah, this was repeated numerous times in the Quran, here is an example

?Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!?

(13)

?It was We who revealed the law (to Moses) therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.?

(44)

-> From the above we can read the message that we should fear Allah ONLY, NOT the people, not to say you should rebel against those flawed mullah, rather wait until you gain the knowledge then you can beat them using your knowledge, the Quran clearly exposes those people and they just turn a blind eye, so our duty is we me and you and ones like us should unite as the Quran is telling us against those Mishrikoon who hijacked our great religion as well our freedom and freewill that Allah has given it to us as it was given to them.

-> the clash will happen bro and I?m counting the years down and Inshaallah our great and true religion will rise again, it can't get corrupted because it is documented in the preserved Quran

That is what I want brother, I want to know logical answers to all these alleged contradiction, please know that I am a novice and I am trying to understand my religion not through emotions and desires like I did in the past, but through rational understanding.

I have it all bro and will be presented well in this thread and will be explained in great details but I bet you the refutes are self explanatory

Brother thank you very much for your replies to the contradictions, I have saved them and will read them as soon as I am free, I just came back from a wedding and I am very sleepy so bye for now.
God bless you and your Family.

No worries mate and my wishs are likewise to you and your family, take you time, my next refute is the name Haman and I will show you how this contradiction turned to be one of the great historical miracles in the Quran

Peace be with you

unknownuser

Hello mate

How are you?, let?s refute the Haman alleged contradiction bro

Alleged Contradiction # 3

The Qur'an claims that Haman was pharaoh's prime minister even though Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later? Yet the Qur'an says so. The Qur'an says that the one who picked Moses from the river was not his sister but his mother (286-, and

Ahmed says

Alleged contradiction merit and rationale 50 %

This is a long one mate but very interesting, it tuned out to be a historical miracle not a contradiction, however I have given it 50% merit due to the fact it is a historical fact and history somehow can be confusing for all of us hence it has 50% merit, please read it thoroughly and ask me any question if you find it a bit confusing.

But before I start I would like to thank brothers Elias Karim, Qasim Iqbal & M S M Saifullah, for their great and very valuable researches

Introduction
Controversy has prevailed since 1698 CE about the historicity (i.e., historical reality or authenticity) of a certain Haman, who according to the Quran, was associated with the Court of Pharaoh to whom Moses(P) was sent as a Prophet by Almighty God (Allah)

?Pharaoh said ?O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!?"

Haman is mentioned six times in the Quran and is referred to as an intimate person belonging to the close circle of Pharaoh during Moses time.

Western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to Egyptian history. The name Haman is first mentioned in the Biblical book of Esther, some 1,100 years after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian. According to the book of Esther, Haman was a counsellor of Ahasuerus (the Biblical name of Xerxes) who as an enemy of the Jews. It has been suggested that Muhammad(P) mixed Biblical stories and Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel, the story of Esther and Moses into a single confused account when composing the Quran.

I propose here to examine the various aspects of the controversy in light of recent historical and archaeological discoveries.

Criticisms By Western Scholars
Prominent Orientalists have not been able to correctly identify the Haman of the Quran, and have thus questioned his historicity. They have suggested that the appearance of Haman in the Quranic story of Moses and Pharaoh has resulted from a misreading of the Bible which moved Haman from the Persian court of King Ahasuerus to the Egyptian court of the Pharaoh.

The first author to enter the list of critics was Marraccio, confessor to Pope Innocent XI, in 1698 CE. The English rendering of critical Note 1 on page 526 of Marraccio's Latin translation of the Quran reads

?Mahumet has mixed up Sacred stories. He took Haman as the adviser of Pharaoh whereas in reality he was an adviser of Ahaseures, King of Persia. He also thought that the Pharaoh ordered construction for him of a lofty tower from the story of the Tower of Babel. It is certain that in the Sacred Scriptures there is no such story of the Pharaoh. Be that as it may, he (Mahumet) has related a most incredible story.?

The Encyclopaedia Of Islam, which claims to have been prepared by a number of leading Orientalists, says

?Haman, name of the person whom the Kur'an associates with Pharaoh, because of a still unexplained confusion with the minister of Ahasuerus in the Biblical book of Esther.?

After talking about this apparent 'confusion', Jeffery says about the origin of the word 'Haman'

?The probabilities are that the word came to the Arabs from Jewish sources.?

George Sale in his translation of the Quran (footnote 'h' on the page) states

?Haman! This name is given to Pharaoh's Chief Minister, from which it is generally inferred that Muhammad has here made Haman, the favourite of Ahasueres, King of Persia, and who indisputably lived many ages after Moses, to be that Prophet's contemporary. But how-probable-so-ever this mistake may seem to us, it will be hard, if not impossible to convince a Muhammadan of it.?

Professor Torrey believed that the Prophet Muhammad(P) drew upon the Rabbinic legends of the Biblical book of Esther and even adapted the story of the Tower of Babel.

On the mention of Haman, Professor Lammens states that it is

"the most glaring anachronism" and is the result of "the confusion between Haman, minister of King Ahasuerus and the minister of Moses' Pharaoh."

Consequently, it is not surprising to find Enemy of Islam exploiting these commentaries in order to prove that the Quran contains serious contradictions. Yet all of the above statements are based on the misrepresentation of the historical value of the Biblical book of Esther, a misunderstanding of the Quran in general, and the unproven assumption that Muhammad(P) copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material when composing the Quran.

Before I show that the name Haman, as it is written in Arabic in the Quran, is the transliteration of the name of a person whose hieroglyphic orthograph is known today, let us first examine the authenticity and reliability the Biblical book of Esther from which the Prophet Muhammad(P) allegedly stole the character Haman.

A Critical Examination Of The Biblical Evidence Used Against The Quran
The criticisms of the non-Muslim scholars and Enemy of Islam are based solely on the assumptions that
Because the Bible has been in existence longer than the Quran, the Biblical account is the correct one, as opposed to the Quranic, which is inaccurate and false.
The Bible is in conformity with firmly established secular knowledge, whereas the Quran contains certain incompatibilities.
Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material when composing the Quran.

The whole basis for the Haman controversy is the appearance of a Haman in the Quran in a historical period different from that of the Bible. The claim that the Quranic account of Haman reflects confused knowledge of the Biblical story of Esther implies that any reference to a Haman must have come from the Bible. Furthermore, the assumption itself implies that either Haman is an unhistorical figure that never existed outside the Bible, or that if he was historical, then he would have to be the prime minister of the Persian King Ahasueus, as depicted in Esther. Their assumptions obviously excludes the possibility that the Bible has its information wrong concerning Haman.

Thus, only if the Book of Esther can be shown to be both historically reliable and accurate, are the non-Muslims justified in making the claim the Quran contradicts the earlier, more "reliable" historic Biblical account.

3.1 The Authenticity & Reliability Of The Book Of Esther
The mention of Haman in the Bible is to be found in the story of Esther. Under Esther, Book Of, the Encyclopaedia Britannica states

?Old Testament book that belongs to the third section of the Judaic biblical canon, known as the Ketubim, or "Writings." In the Jewish Bible, Esther follows Ecclesiastes and Lamentations and is read on the festival of Purim (q.v.), which commemorates the rescue of the Jews from Haman's plottings. The Book of Esther is one of the Megillot, five scrolls read on stated Jewish religious holidays. Esther appears between Nehemiah and Job in the Protestant canon. In the Roman Catholic canon, Esther appears between Judith and Job and includes six chapters that are considered apocryphal in the Jewish and Protestant traditions.

The book purports to explain how the feast of Purim came to be celebrated by the Jews. Esther, the beautiful Jewish wife of the Persian king Ahasuerus (Xerxes I), and her cousin Mordecai persuade the king to retract an order for the general annihilation of Jews throughout the empire. The massacre had been plotted by the king's chief minister, Haman, and the date decided by casting lots (Purim). Instead, Haman was hanged on the gallows he built for Mordecai; and on the day planned for their annihilation, the Jews destroyed their enemies. According to the Book of Esther, the feast of Purim was established to celebrate that day, but this explanation is surely legendary. There is nothing close to a consensus, however, as to what historical event provided the basis for the story. The book may have been composed as late as the first half of the 2nd century BC, though the origin of the Purim festival could date to the Babylonian exile (6th century BC).

The secular character of the Book of Esther (the divine name is never mentioned) and its strong nationalistic overtones made its admission into the biblical canon highly questionable for both Jews and Christians. Apparently in response to the conspicuous absence of any reference to God in the book, the redactors (editors) of its Greek translation in the Septuagint interspersed many additional verses throughout the text that demonstrate Esther's and Mordecai's religious devotion. These so-called Additions to the Book of Esther do not appear in the Hebrew Bible, are treated as canonical in Roman Catholic Bibles, and are placed in the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles.?

It is not surprising to find that some fifty years ago, C. C. Torrey, writing about the Book of Esther, asked on the pages of Harvard Theological Review

?Why is there no Greek translation of the Hebrew text? Every other book of the Hebrew Bible, whatever its nature, has its faithful rendering (at least one, often several) in Greek. For the canonical Esther, on the contrary, no such version is extant, nor is there evidence that one ever existed.?

It is common knowledge that the extant Greek versions of Esther are textually distant from the Hebrew Masoretic version. The Greek version of the Book of Esther contains 107 additional verses that are not found in the Hebrew original. They were composed in Greek, probably in the 1st century BC , with the intention of making the story more religious in character and more relevant to the situation of the Jewish people. In Protestant Bibles, these passages are included as a separate book in the Old Testament Apocrypha. In most editions of the Bible used by Roman Catholics they are included with the original version of the book. Concerning the Greek Additions to Esther (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation), the Encyclopaedia Britannica states

?The Hebrew Book of Esther had a religious and social value to the Jews during the time of Greek and Roman anti-Semitism, though the Hebrew short story did not directly mention God's intervention in history --and even God himself is not named. To bring the canonical book up-to-date in connection with contemporary anti-Semitism and to stress the religious meaning of the story, additions were made in its Greek translation. These Greek additions are

the dream of Mordecai (Esther's uncle), a symbolic vision written in the spirit of apocalyptic literature;
the edict of King Artaxerxes (considered by some to be Artaxerxes II, but more probably Xerxes) against the Jews, containing arguments taken from classical anti-Semitism;
the prayers of Mordecai and of Esther, containing apologies for what is said in the Book of Esther--Mordecai saying that he refused to bow before Haman (the grand vizier) because he is flesh and blood and Esther saying that she strongly detests her forced marriage with the heathen king;
a description of Esther's audience with the King, during which the King's mood was favourably changed when he saw that Esther had fallen down in a faint;
the decree of Artaxerxes on behalf of the Jews, in which Haman is called a Macedonian who plotted against the King to transfer the kingdom of Persia to the Macedonians; and
the interpretation of Mordecai's dream and a colophon (inscription at the end of a manuscript with publication facts), where the date, namely, "the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra" (i.e., 114 BCE), is given. This indicates that the additions in the Greek Esther were written in Egypt under the rule of the Ptolemies.

Again under Myth and Legend in the Persian Period (Judaism), the Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions

?The principal monument of Jewish story in the Persian period is the biblical Book of Esther, and this is basically the Judaized version of a Persian novella about the shrewdness of harem queens. The story was adapted to account for a popular festival named Purim, but this is probably a transmogrification of the Persian New Year.

Such leading elements of the tale as the parade of Mordecai through the streets dressed in royal robes, the fight between the Jews and their adversaries, and the hanging of Haman and his sons seem, indeed, to reflect customs associated with that occasion, viz., the ceremonial ride of a common citizen through the capital, the mock combat between two teams representing Old Year and New Year, and the execution of the Old Year in effigy.?

The story in Esther also contains information that is known to be wrong, such as the suggestion that Persia was divided into as many as 127 provinces or satrapies when the equivalent numbers given in historical sources do not exceed 30. The Book of Esther points rather to a romantic story than a historical chronicle. According to The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia

?The majority of scholars, however, regard the book as a romance reflecting the customs of later times and given an ancient settings to avoid giving offence. They point out that the 127 provinces mentioned are in strange contrast to the historical twenty Persian Satrapies; that it is astonishing that while Mordecai is known to be a Jew, his ward and cousin, Esther, can conceal the fact that she is a Jewess - that the known queen of Xerxes, Amestris, can be identified with neither Vashti nor Esther; that it would have been impossible for a non-Persian person to be appointed prime minister or for a queen to selected except from the seven highest noble families; that Mordecai's ready access to the palaces is not in consonance with the strictness with which the Persian harems were guarded; that the laws of Medes and Persians were never irrevocable; and that the state of affairs in the book, amounting practically in civil war, could not have passed unnoticed by historians if this had actually occurred. The very tone of the book itself, its literary craftsmanship and the aptness of its situations, point rather to a romantic story than a historical chronicle.?

And some scholars trace its origin to be entirely non-Jewish

?Some scholars trace it to be non-Jewish origin entirely; it is, in their opinion, either a reworking of a triumph of the Babylonian god Marduk (Mordecai) and Isthar (Esther) over the Elamite god Hamman (Haman) and Mashti (Vashti) or the suppression of the Magians by Darius or even of the resistance of the Babylonians to the decree of Artaxerxes II. According to this view, Purim is a Babylonian feast which was taken over by the Jews, and the story of which was given a Jewish colouring.?

Most modern scholars now regard the book as a work of pure fiction. The Jewish Encyclopaedia asserts that

?Comparatively few modern scholars of note consider the narrative of Esther to rest on a historical foundation..... The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusion that the book is a piece of pure fiction, although some writers qualify their criticism by an attempt to treat it as a historical romance.?

3.2 The Inclusion Of The Book Of Esther As Part Of The Biblical Canon
Concerning the addition of the Book of Esther in the Bible Canon, The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia informs us that

?The Book of Esther did not get into the Bible canon without a struggle. According to a tradition it was opposed by many sages because it instituted a few festival and did not mention the name of God. Ben Sira and Philo never cite from it, and Ezra does not refer to the story at all, though it deals with the same period of history. It was not until the 2nd century CE that Esther was finally accepted as a Scriptural book.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia then cites examples of impossibilities of the story. It further states

?In view of all evidence the authority of the Book of Esther as a historical record must be definitely rejected. Its position in the canon among the Hagiographa (the third part of the Jewish scriptures) or 'Ketubim' (writings, including Psalms, wisdom books, and other diverse literature) is the only thing which has induced Orthodox scholars to defend its historical character at all. Even the Jews of the first and second centuries of the common era questioned its right to be included among the canonical books of the Bible.?

Various historical and chronological inaccuracies and improbabilities have lead to the conclusion that the book, as a historical record, should be rejected. Another significant factor for its rejection is that no fragment of the Book of Esther has been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

William Neil's One Volume Bible Commentary finds it difficult to understand how the Book of Esther ever came to be included in the Old Testament

?It is difficult to understand how the book of Esther ever came to be included in the Old Testament. The puzzle is to find any trace of religious conviction in it. The name of God is never mentioned, the atmosphere is one of political intrigue and the action revolves round the whims of a despot. There is in Esther little charity and no mercy but an abundance of hatred and slaughter. It was admitted into the Jewish canon with considerable misgivings, since the religious sentiments contained in the additions to Esther in the Greek version of the Old Testament had to be relegated to the Apocrypha (see p.319). The Christian Church accepted it with reluctance; the New Testament does not refer to it; Luther wished it had never been written and most commentators since this day have deplored it.?

Neither Jews nor Christians are happy with the inclusion of this book as part of the canon, and had it not been for the festival of Purim (unknown in the Old Testament) there would be very little to recommend it

?Neither Jews nor Christians, however, have been happy with the presence of the book in the canon of the holy scripture. Its status was hotly debated by rabbis all through the first two centuries AD, and they obviously accepted it only because of the demand of the masses. Among Christians also there was a question about its status. Martin Luther declared that he wished it did not exist. It must be admitted that without the popularity of the festival of Purim the book would have had little to recommend it for a place in the canon".?

3.3 The Historicity of the Biblical Haman and King Ahasuerus
From the foregoing quotations it is clear that Judaeo-Christian scholars consider this story to be a fable, and of little or no historical value. And furthermore, no scholar can claim that the characters of this story, notably Haman, actually ever existed. In fact, all characters in the Book of Esther, with the possible exception of Ahasuerus, are unknown to history even though it claims that its events are

?And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia??
(Esther 102)

Concerning Haman, Encyclopaedia Judaica states

?Various explanations have been offered to explain the name and designation of the would-be exterminator of the Jews. The names of both Haman and his father have been associated with haoma, a sacred drink used in Mithraic worship, and with the Elamite god Humman. The name Haman has also been related to the Persian hamayun, 'illustrious', and to the Persian name Owanes.?V

The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible shares a similar view

?Some scholars view the story of Esther as reflecting a mythological struggle between the gods of Babylon and Elam, with Haman identified as the Elamite god Humman.?

The Ahasuerus (Persian Khshayarsha , Greek Xerxes) of the Book of Esther is generally identified with King Xerxes I (c. 519-465 BC ), king of Persia (486-465 BC ). The Webster's Biographical Dictionary informs us that

?Ahasuerus Name as used in the Bible, of two unidentified kings of Persia (1) the great king whose capital was Shushan, modern Susa, sometimes identified with Xerxes the Great, but chronological and other data conflict; (2) the father of Darius the Mede.?

There exists an unhistorical Haman in the book of Esther. This unhistorical Haman is portrayed as the prime minister of Ahasuerus (Xerxes I?), King of Persia, but the events recorded in the Book of Esther show little correlation with those of the actual reign of Xerxes I.

3.4 Conclusions Concerning The Book Of Esther & Its Use As An Evidence Against The Quran
The Encyclopaedia Biblica concludes that the Book of Esther is

?a tissue of improbabilities and impossibilities..... Further, notwithstanding the dates which he gives us, the author had in reality no notion of chronology.... That the Book of Esther cannot be regarded as a genuine historical work is avowed even by many adherents of ecclesiastical tradition. Since, however, the most essential parts of the story, namely the deliverance of the Jews from complete extermination and their murderous reprisals by means of the Jewish queen and the Jewish minister, are altogether unhistorical, it is impossible to treat the book as an embellished version of some real event.... and we are forced to conclusion that the whole narrative is fictitious.?

A few conclusions can now be drawn

The book is of secular character with strong nationalistic overtones. The 'inspired book' of Esther does not even mention God!

The story of Esther is regarded as fictitious and should be rejected as a historical record.

The story is borrowed from Persian novella, and its contents reflect the customs associated with the Persians. These Persian customs later became "Judiased".

The absence of the name of God led to religiously motivated additions of over 100 verses to the Greek version of the book. These additions do not appear in the original Hebrew text but are accepted as canonical in Roman Catholic Bibles; and in Protestant Bibles form a separate book in the Apocrypha.

Thus Book of Esther cannot be accepted as a reliable historical document nor as a divinely inspired book. And furthermore, it cannot in anyway be used as evidence against the Quran; evidence that is used to show how the Quran contradicts both secular knowledge and the earlier, more "reliable" Biblical account. Yet we find the Enemy of Islam using the Book of Esther, proclaiming it to be a reliable historical record, in a vain attempt to prove that the Quran contains a contradiction! An example that is often parroted is reproduced below

This is another possible example of two historical compressions in the same story and the same confusion in both texts that recount the event. At least the Quran is consistent within itself.

According to Surah 2835-42 and 4036-37, Haman was a minister or official of the Pharaoh (king of Egypt) who lived in the same time as Moses.

According to Jewish history Haman served as the minister of Ahasuerus (king of Persia, Xerxes I is his name in Greek).

Apart from the error in location, this is placing Pharaoh (Moses) and Haman in the same story even though they lived 1,000 years apart.

?After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.?
(Esther 31)

Furthermore, in the Quran Haman is ordered by Pharaoh to build a tower reaching into heaven ("the Tower of Babel") which is a well known story of an event that took place long before Abraham, who lived at least 400 years before Moses.

The Egyptian hieroglyphic script was deciphered after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, a bilingual text dating from 196 BC. Encyclopaedia Britannica states (Under Hieroglyph)

?The discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 was to provide the key to the final unlocking of the mystery. The stone was inscribed with three different scripts hieroglyphic, demotic, and Greek. Based on the stone's own declaration, in the Greek portion, that the text was identical in all three cases, several significant advances were made in translation.

A.I. Silvestre de Sacy, a French scholar, and J.D. Akerblad, a Swedish diplomat, succeeded in identifying a number of proper names in the demotic text. Akerblad also correctly assigned phonetic values to a few of the signs. An Englishman, Thomas Young, correctly identified five of the hieroglyphics.

The full deciphering of the stone was accomplished by another Frenchman, Jean-Fran?oise Champollion. He brought to the stone a natural facility for languages (having, by age 16, become proficient in six ancient Oriental languages as well as Greek and Latin). By comparison of one sign with another, he was able to determine the phonetic values of the hieroglyphics. Later studies simply confirmed and refined Champollion's work.?

It is a fact that the hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten at the time of the Quranic Revelation and that no one could read them until Champollion finally deciphered the script in the 19th century CE. Keeping the recent decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs in mind, let us now discuss the above mentioned historical facts.

4.2 The Pharaoh As god
The Encyclopaedia Britannica informs us that the term "Pharaoh" originally referred to the royal residence, and was later applied to the king during the New Kingdom period (1539-1292 BC), and that the Pharaoh was indeed considered a god

?Pharaoh (from Egyptian per 'aa, "great house") , originally, the royal palace in ancient Egypt; the word came to be used as a synonym for the Egyptian king under the New Kingdom (starting in the 18th dynasty, 1539-1292 BC), and by the 22nd dynasty (c. 945-c. 730 BC) it had been adopted as an epithet of respect. The term has since evolved into a generic name for all ancient Egyptian kings, although it was never formally the king's title. In official documents, the full title of the Egyptian king consisted of five names, each preceded by one of the following titles Horus; Two Ladies; Golden Horus; King of Upper and Lower Egypt and Lord of the Double Land; and Son of Re and Lord of the Diadems. The last name was given him at birth, the others at coronation.

The Egyptians believed their Pharaoh to be a god, identifying him with the sky god Horus and with the sun gods Re, Amon, and Aton. Even after death the Pharaoh remained divine, becoming transformed into Osiris, the father of Horus and god of the dead, and passing on his sacred powers and position to the new Pharaoh, his son.

The Pharaoh's divine status was believed to endow him with magical powers his uraeus (the snake on his crown) spat flames at his enemies, he was able to trample thousands of the enemy on the battlefield, and he was all-powerful, knowing everything and controlling nature and fertility. As a divine ruler, the Pharaoh was the preserver of the God-given order, called ma'at. He owned a large portion of Egypt's land and directed its use, was responsible for his people's economic and spiritual welfare, and dispensed justice to his subjects. His will was supreme, and he governed by royal decree.?

And concerning Pharaoh, Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says

?The Egyptians believed that he was a god and the keys to the nation's relationship to the cosmic gods. While the Pharaoh ruled, he was the son of Ra, the sun god and the incarnation of Horus. He came from the gods with divine responsibility to rule the land for them. His word was law, and he owned everything. When the Pharaoh died, he became the god Osiris, the ruler of the underworld...?

4.3 The Making Of Bricks In Ancient Egypt
In the Quran the Pharaoh, who boastful and mocking, asks his associate Haman to build a lofty tower

?Pharaoh said ?O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!?"

The command of Pharaoh was but a boast, but a new question now arises Were mud bricks ever burnt (baked) in Egypt at this time? It is a well known fact, borne out by archaeological research, that mud bricks and baked bricks were manufactured in ancient Egypt. According to A.J. Spencer's Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt the use of burnt brick did not become common until the Roman period although the Ancient Egyptians were aware that mud-bricks could be hardened by burning

?The use of burnt brick in Egypt did not become common until the Roman Period, but there is sufficient evidence to show that the material was known from a very early date, although used infrequently. Long bars of baked clay were employed in the Predynastic grain-kilns at Abydos and Mahasna, and, while these cannot be called bricks, they show a knowledge of the effect of baking on ordinary mud. It is impossible that early Egyptians were unaware of the fact that mud-bricks could be hardened by burning, since they could have observed this process in any building which, by accident or design, was gutted by fire. Several examples of this accidental production of burnt brick occur in the large First Dynasty tombs at Saqqara, due to their having been burnt by plunderers, and similar cases must have been fairly common. However, we have, as yet, no evidence that Egyptians deliberately prepared burnt bricks for use in buildings during the Archaic Period or the Old Kingdom, the earliest examples of their use being in the Middle Kingdom fortresses in Nubia, in which they were used as paving-slabs. These slabs, which measure 30 x 30 x 5cm, were employed because of their greater resistance to wear and to damp, compared with mud brick.?

The earliest examples of Egyptians deliberately preparing burnt brick date from the Middle Kingdom, and no more instances of burnt brick are recorded until the time of the New Kingdom (the period of history in which Moses(P) is associated) when they occur in conjunction with funerary cones in the superstructures of the tombs at Thebes.

The materials used in ancient brick making were Nile mud, chopped straw and sand

?These were mixed in varying quantities to produce bricks of different characteristics. The commonest type of bricks consist of mud and chopped straw with a small addition of sand, but varieties regularly occur which made up of nothing but sand and gravelly desert soil.?

The clay content determines whether the mud will be sufficiently cohesive to form bricks without the addition of binding agents such as chopped straw or animal dung

?Ancient bricks were made in much the same way as mudbricks are still made in Egypt. The most important ingredient was Nile mud which naturally contains clay and sand in varying proportions. The clay content determines whether the mud will be sufficiently cohesive to form bricks without the addition of a binding agent such as chopped straw or animal dung. If the mud is too rich in clay, the bricks will dry out slowly and tend to shrink and crack. The process of making bricks is shown in the tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes. The earth mixed with water, and the vegetable binder if necessary, is worked into a smooth mud. This is then formed into bricks by being pressed into a rectangular wooden mould and tipped out on to the ground to dry in the sun (fig. 11). Rows of these bricks may be seen in brickfields today, though the modern blocks are likely to contain cement powder to add strength and to accelerate the hardening process. Many bricks intended for important buildings were marked with impressions from a wooden stamp usually bearing the name of the King who commissioned the building. The majority of bricks were not kiln-fired or baked, as was the custom in Mesopotamia at the same time, since the climate of Egypt was much drier and there was no significant problem with rain or wind erosion. Occasionally 'burnt' bricks were used to pave streets or ceremonial ways where sun-dried bricks would be quickly worn away by use or eroded by water. In general building use, damaged bricks or those which had crumbled with age could be 'recycled' by being crushed and mixed with water and fresh mud to start a new batch.?

It is believed that the art of brick making was imported into Egypt from Mesopotamia to produce some magnificent monuments. A.J. Spencer concludes

?From the foregoing, it must be concluded that burnt brick was known in Egypt at all periods, but used only when its durability would give particular advantage over the mud brick.?

Finally, the command of Pharaoh to build a lofty tower out of baked bricks has nothing whatsoever to do with the fictitious Biblical story of the "Tower of Babel?.

4.4 The Desire Of The Pharaoh To Ascend To The Skies
?Pharaoh said ?O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace (Arabic Sarhan), that I may mount up to the god of Moses but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!?"

Pharaoh said ?O Haman! Build me a lofty palace (Arabic Sarhan), that I may attain the ways and means - The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!?"

The desire to ascend to the gods in the sky was an article of the ancient Egyptian religion. The idea of the Pharaoh climbing a tower or staircase to reach the God of Moses(P) is in consonance with the mythology of ancient Egypt. The Pharaoh, asks the gods (or men) to construct a staircase or a tower in order to climb and converse with the gods

?Standing before the gods, the Pharaoh shows his authority. He orders them to construct a staircase so that he may climb to the sky. If they do not obey him, they will have neither food nor offerings. But the king takes one precaution. It is not he himself, as an individual, who speaks, but the divine power "It is not I who say this to you, the gods, it is the Magic who speaks".

When the Pharaoh completes his climb, magic at his feet "The sky trembles", he asserts, "the earth shivers before me, for I am a magician, I possess magic". It is also he who installs the gods on their thrones, thus proving that the cosmos recognises his omnipotence.?

In the Quran, the Pharaoh, who boastful and mocking asks his close associate Haman to build a sky-high tower in order to see the God of Moses(P) face-to-face. Furthermore, the desire of Pharaoh to ascend to the sky has nothing whatsoever to do with the fictitious Biblical story of the "Tower of Babel".

To be continued....

unknownuser

4.5 The Mystery Of The Name Haman
Haman is mentioned six times in the Quran surah 28, verses 6, 8 and 38; surah 29, verse 39; and surah 40, verses 24 and 36. He was close to Pharaoh who, boastful and mocking, said

?Pharaoh said ?O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace (Arabic Sarhan), that I may mount up to the god of Moses but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!?"

Pharaoh said ?O Haman! Build me a lofty palace (Arabic Sarhan), that I may attain the ways and means - The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!?"

The above verses portray Haman as someone close to Pharaoh, who was also in charge of building projects, otherwise the Pharaoh would have directed someone else. So, who is Haman? It appears that no commentator of the Quran has dealt with this question on a thorough hieroglyphic basis. As previously mentioned, some authors have suggested that "Haman" is reference to Haman, a counsellor of Ahasuerus who was an enemy of the Jews. While others have been searching for consonances with the name of the Egyptian god "Amun".

Concerning the question of Haman, Dr. Maurice Bucaille believes that the best course of action was to ask an expert in Old Egyptian

?The only valid investigation was to ask an expert in Old Egyptian for his opinion about the presence in the Quran of this name.?

Dr. Maurice Bucaille then narrates an interesting discussion he had with a prominent French Egyptologists

?In the book Reflections on the Quran (R?flexions sur le Coran ), I have related the result of such a consultation that dates back to a dozen years ago and led me to question a specialist who, in addition, knew well the classical Arabic language. One of the most prominent French Egyptologists, fulfilling these conditions, was kind enough to answer the question.
I showed him the word "Haman" that I had copied exactly like it is written in the Quran, and told him that it had been extracted from a sentence of a document dating back to the 7th century AD, the sentence being related to somebody connected with Egyptian history.

He said to me that, in such a case, he would see in this word the transliteration of a hieroglyphic name but, for him, undoubtedly it could not be possible that a written document of the 7th century had contained a hieroglyphic name - unknown until that time - since, in that time, the hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten.

In order to confirm his deduction about the name, he advised me to consult the Dictionary of Personal Names of the New Kingdom by Ranke, where I might find the name written in hieroglyphs, as he had written before me, and the transliteration in German.

I discovered all that had been presumed by the expert, and, moreover, I was stupefied to read the profession of Haman "The Chief of the workers in the stone-quarries," exactly what could be deduced from the Quran, though the words of the Pharaoh suggest a master of construction.
When I came again to the expert with a photocopy of the page of the Dictionary concerning "Haman" and showed him one of the pages of the Quran where he could read the name, he was speechless...

Moreover, Ranke had noted, as a reference, a book published in 1906 by the Egyptologist Walter Wreszinski the latter had mentioned that the name of "Haman" had been engraved on a stela kept at the Hof-Museum of Vienna (Austria). Several years later, when I was able to read the profession written in hieroglyphs on the stela, I observed that the determinative joined to the name had emphasised the importance of the intimate of Pharaoh.?

And he went on to say

?Had the Bible or any other literary work, composed during a period when the hieroglyphs could still be deciphered, quoted "Haman," the presence in the Quran of this word might have not drawn special attention. But, it is a fact that the hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten at the time of the Quranic Revelation and that no one could not read them until the 19th century AD. Since matters stood like that in ancient times, the existence of the word "Haman" in the Quran suggests a special reflection.?

It is obvious, therefore, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the appearance of Haman in the Quran in a historical period different from that of the Bible involves any confusion with the Biblical version of history as claimed by a number of Orientalists and Enemy of Islam. There is clearly no basis for their allegations, that the Prophet Muhammad(P) mixed Biblical stories and Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel, Esther and Moses(P) into a single confused account when composing the Quran.

Such false allegations continue to persist and are widely circulated. Unfortunately, one will find this type of methodology being used over-and-over again. We regularly encounter baseless allegations which are used to attack the Quran and the noble character of the Prophet Muhammad(P) . Other documents to be found on this web-site will bear testimony to the false and intellectually dishonest arguments that are sometimes employed against Islam.

Conclusions
In this post we have tried to show the historicity of a few statements made in the Quran concerning ancient Egypt the role of the Pharaoh in Egyptian society as god, the desire of Pharaoh to ascend to the sky, and the use of bricks in Egyptian construction and the person Haman.

When one compares the data of Egyptology to what is contained in numerous verses of the Quran, one has to admit that there is a remarkable degree of agreement between the two. The Egyptological data quoted above shows that the name Haman is a personal name of the New Kingdom. Although neither the Bible nor the Quran name the Pharaoh, we do know that one of his counsellors was called Haman whose hieroglyphic name has been engraved on a stela kept at the Hof-Museum of Vienna (Austria); the secular data is not precise enough to determine who the Pharaoh was in question.

The historicity of Haman provides yet another death-blow to the theory that parts of the Quran were allegedly copied from the Bible. If hieroglyphs were long dead and the Book of Esther a work of fiction, then from where did the Prophet Muhammad(P) obtain his information? The Quran answers

?Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. He was taught by one mighty in Power.?

It is interesting to note that the meaning of the word ayah, usually translated as verse in the Quran, also means a sign and a proof. The reference to Haman and other facts concerning ancient Egypt in the Quran suggests a special reflection.

The fact remains that there is an unhistorical Haman in the book of Esther. This unhistorical Haman is portrayed as the prime minister of Ahasuerus, King of Persia. The plot of the unhistorical Haman to annihilate the Jews in the Persian empire in retaliation to Mordecai's refusal to bow to him, seems to be the corrupt version of the original event when Haman had a hand in suggesting and executing the second massacre of the Israelites newborn males to demoralise the Israelites and discourage them from following Moses

?And indeed We sent Moses with Our ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelation, etc.), and a manifest authority. To Pharaoh, Haman and Qarun, but they called (him) ?A sorcerer, a liar!??

?Then, when he brought them the Truth from Us, they said ?Kill the sons of those who believe with him and let their women live?; but the plots of the disbelievers are nothing but in vain!?

There is more information that needs to be researched concerning Ancient Egypt in the Quran. And I will try to post as many as I can regarding the Egyptian history

Notes & References
Ludwig Marroccio (Confessor to the Pope Innocent XI), Alcoranus Textus Universus, 1698, Published at Paduae, Italy.

B. Lewis, V. L. Menage, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht (Editors), Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), 1971, Volume III, E J Brill (Leiden) & Luzac & Co. (London), p. 110.

A. Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran, 1938, Oriental Institute, Baroda, pp. 284.

G. Sale, The Koran, 1825, Volume II, London, p. 239.

C. C. Torrey, Jewish Foundation of Islam, 1933, New York, See pages 117 and 119.

H. Lammens (Translated from French by Sir E Denison Ross), Islam Beliefs and Institutions, 1929, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, p. 39.

Britannica Online, Encyclopaedia Britannica On The World Wide Web, (Under "Esther, Book of").

C. C. Torrey, "The Older Book of Esther", 1944, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 37, p. 1.

It has recently been suggested that the Slavonic book of Esther may in fact have been translated from the lost Greek text. See Horace G Lunt & Moshe Taube, "The Slavonic Book of Esther Translation From Hebrew Or Evidence For A Lost Greek Text?", 1994, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 87, p. 347.

Britannica Online, Op.cit., (Under "the Greek Additions To Esther ").

Britannica Online, Op. cit., (Under "the Myth And Legend in the Persian Period (Judaism)").

The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1941, Volume 4, The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia Inc., New York, p. 170.

Ibid.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume V, Funk & Wagnalls Company, pp. 235-236.

The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, Op.cit., p. 170.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia, Op.cit., p. 236.

17] Ibid.

B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan (Ed.), Oxford Companion To The Bible, 1993, Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York, pp. 159 (Under "Dead Sea Scrolls").

W. Neil, William Neil's One Volume Bible Commentary, 1962 (1976 print), "Esther", Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, London, p. 219.

Interpreter's One Volume Commentary On The Bible, 1972, William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, London, pp. 232-233.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 7, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, The Macmillan Company (Under "Haman"), p. 1222.

The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, 1962 (1996 Print), George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), Volume 2, Abingdon Press, Nashville (Under "Haman"), p. 516.

Webster's Biographical Dictionary, 1972, G & C Merriam Co., Springfield, USA, p. 17.

The Rev. T. K. Cheyne & J. Sutherland Black (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1901, Volume II, The Macmillan Company, New York, Columns 1400-1402.

Britannica Online, Op. cit., (Under "Hieroglyph").

Ibid.

Britannica Online, Op. cit., (Under "Pharaoh").

H. Lockyer, Sr. (General Editor), F.F. Bruce et al, (Consulting Editors), Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers, (under "Pharaoh").

A. J. Spencer, Brick Architecture In Ancient Egypt, 1979, Aris & Phillips Ltd., UK, p. 140.

Ibid.

Ibid, p. 3.

H. Wilson, People of the Pharaohs From Peasant to Courtier, 1997, Michael O'Mara Books Limited, London, pp. 36-37.

A. J. Spencer, Op. cit., p. 141.

C. Jacq (Translated By Janet M Davis), Egyptian Magic, 1985, Aris & Phillips Ltd. (In the UK) & Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Chicago (In the USA), p. 11.

Syed suggests that "Haman" is a title of a person not his name, just as Pharaoh was a title and not a proper personal name. Syed proposes that the title "Haman" referred to the "high priest of Amun". Amun is also known as "Hammon" and both are normal pronounciations of the same name. Syed's identification of Haman as "the high priest of Amun" may be probable. See Sher Mohammad Syed, "Historicity Of Haman As Mentioned In The Quran", The Islamic Quarterly, 1980, Volume XXIV, No. 1 and 2, First & Second Quarter, Islamic Cultural Centre, London.

M. Bucaille, Moses and Pharaoh The Hebrews in Egypt, 1995, NTT Mediascope Inc., Tokyo, pp. 192-193.

M. Talbi and M. Bucaille, R?flexions sur le Coran, 1989, Seghers, Paris.

H. Ranke, Die ?gyptischen Personennamen, Verzeichnis der Namen, Verlag Von J J Augustin in Gl?ckstadt, Band I (1935).

W. Wreszinski, Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof Museum in Wien, 1906, J C Hinrichs' sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig.

The name is listed as masculine, from the New Kingdom. The profession translated into German reads Vorsteher der Steinbruch arbeiter - "The Chief/Overseer of the workers in the stone-quarries" (Aegyptische Inschriften, I34, p. 130).

In hieroglyphic writing words are sometimes written with meaning-signs, or determinatives, placed at the end of the word. Determinatives do not contribute to the sounds of the word and so are not transliterated. They simply help us to get some general idea of the meaning of a word. Most determinatives serve to indicate the general category of the word they describe. Determinative signs can also assist when translating old Egyptian. The ancient Egyptians had a habit of writing sentences without spaces between words, and without an indication of the start of a new sentence. Because determinative signs are placed at the end of words, they provide a means to decipher the sentence.

Bucaille, Moses and Pharaoh The Hebrews in Egypt, Op. cit. pp. 192-193.

Ibid.

It is not possible to determine whether this inscription refers to the Quranic Haman. What we do know however is that the name Haman is attested in Ancient Egypt, it is a masculine name, and dates to the New Kingdom period, the period of history in which Moses is associated.

Thanks for reading

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/ag_end.gif

unknownuser

Mate now let me highlight the historical miracle again

HAMAN AND ANCIENT EGYPT MONUMENTS
A Historical Miracle in the Noble Quran
The Quran relates the life of the Prophet Musa (as) with great clarity. As it tells of the conflict with the Pharaoh and his dealings with the Children of Israel, the Quran reveals a wealth of information about ancient Egypt. The significance of many of these historical points have only recently come to the attention of the learned people of the world. If one considers these points with reason, it quickly becomes clear that the Quran, and the fountain of information contained within it, has been revealed by the All-Wise Allah for it correlates directly with all major scientific, historic and archaeological finds in recent times.

One such example of this wisdom can be found in the Quranic references to Haman a character whose name is mentioned in the Quran, along with the Pharaoh. He is mentioned in six different places in the Quran, in which it informs us that he was one of Pharaoh's closest allies.

Surprisingly, the name "Haman" is never mentioned in those sections of the Torah pertaining to the life of the Prophet Musa (as). However, the mention of Haman can be found in the last chapters of the Old Testament as the helper of a Babylonian king who inflicted many cruelties on the Israelites approximately 1,100 years after the Prophet Musa (as).The Quran, far more in tune with recent archaeological discoveries, does indeed contain the word "Haman" in reference to the life of the Prophet Musa (as).

The criticisms thrown at the book of Islam by some non-Muslims have disappeared by the wayside as an Egyptian hieroglyphic script had been deciphered, approximately 200 years ago, and the name "Haman" discovered in the ancient scripts. Until the 18th century, the writings and inscriptions of ancient Egypt could not be understood. The language of ancient Egypt was made up of symbols rather than words hieroglyphics. These pictures, which tell stories and keep records of important events in the same way that modern words do, was usually engraved on rock or stone and many examples survived through the ages. With the spread of Christianity and other cultural influences in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Egypt forsook its ancient beliefs along with the hieroglyphic writing which was synonymous with that now defunct belief system. The last known example of the use of hieroglyphic writing was an inscription dated 394. The language of pictures and symbols was forgotten, leaving nobody who could read and understand it. Naturally, this made historical and archaeological study virtually impossible. This situation remained-until just over two centuries ago.

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/quran/haman.jpg
The name "Haman" was not known until the decoding of Egyptian hieroglyphics in the 19th century. When the hieroglyphics were decoded, it was understood that Haman was a close helper of the Pharaoh and was "the head of the stone quarries." (Above are shown ancient Egyptian construction workers). The most important point here is that Haman is mentioned in the Quran as the person who directed construction work under the command of the Pharaoh. This means that information that could not have been known by anybody else at that time was given in the Quran, a point most worthy of note.

In 1799, much to the delight of historians and other learned people, the mystery of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics was solved by the discovery of a tablet called the "Rosetta Stone." This amazing find dated back to 196 B.C. The importance of this inscription was that it was written in three different forms of writing hieroglyphics, demotic (a simplified form of ancient Egyptian hieratic writing) and Greek. With the help of the Greek script, the ancient Egyptian writings were decoded. The translation of the inscription was completed by a Frenchman named Jean-Fran?oise Champollion. Hence, a forgotten language and the events related in it were brought to light. In this way, a great deal of knowledge about the civilization, religion and social life of ancient Egypt became available to mankind and this opened the way to greater knowledge about this important era in human history.

Through the decoding of hieroglyph, an important piece of knowledge was revealed The name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions. This name was referred to in a monument in the Hof Museum in Vienna. This same inscription also indicated the close relationship between Haman and the Pharaoh.

In the dictionary of People in the New Kingdom, that was prepared based on the entire collection of inscriptions, Haman is said to be "the head of stone quarry workers."

The result revealed a very important truth Unlike the false assertion of the opponents of the Quran, Haman was a person who lived in Egypt at the time of the Prophet Musa (as). He had been close to the Pharaoh and had been involved in construction work, just as imparted in the Quran.

?Pharaoh said ?O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace (Arabic Sarhan), that I may mount up to the god of Moses but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!?"

The verse in the Quran describing the event where the Pharaoh asked Haman to build a tower is in perfect agreement with this archaeological finding. Through this brilliant discovery, the irrational claims of the opponents of the Quran were demonstrated to be false and intellectually worthless.

In a miraculous way, the Quran conveys to us historical information that could not have been possessed or understood at the time of the Prophet (saas). Hieroglyphics could not be deciphered until the late 1700s so the information could not have been ascertained from Egyptian sources. When the name "Haman" was discovered in the ancient scripts, it was further proof of the infallibility of Allah's Word.

Peace be with you

agentxxx

salam Ahmed,
about "Alleged Contradicting # 2"

?O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste?

Brother your explaination is logical and impressve, while going through it i agreed with almost every thing, but there was still one confusion and that was why "Aaron" untill i read

The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them.

even though i dont trust hadiths any more, this one seems logical because i see it happening even today. i told you that my father was a prominent figure in pakistan, I have seen my nephews, nieces, my two sons and first cousins, who most of the time introduce themselves to the others by stating their relationship to my father instead of giving reference of their own father and vice versa I have seen people introducing these family members of mine with others, using my fathers reference.
so this alleged contradiction is gone with the wind lol
thank you very much brother, i hope to learn a lot from you to satisfy my Inquisitive mind.
God bless you all.

unknownuser

Thank you bro, I'm delighted that it makes sense to you and sure you added further sense to it, next refute bro is the big one, number 1

peace be with you

unknownuser

Hello agentxxx

This alleged contradiction is my favourite bro, there will be a lot of things to discuss including passages from the Bible, the Quran and the dead Sea Scrolls, let?s look at the alleged contradiction first

Alleged Contradiction # 1

The Qur'an explicitly denies that Jesus was crucified. It claims that the Jews became so confused that they crucified somebody else instead who had the likeness of Christ. It is recorded in the Qur'an 415,
"They slew him not nor crucified but it appeared so unto them."

Ahmed says

Alleged contradiction merit and rationale = 65%

Mate as I said this is a big one that is why I gave it 65% rationale to be classified as an alleged contradiction, the difficulty of this issue relates to the brainwash that the fellow Christians has been through for 1700 years, not much difference to the flaw the Muslims brought to themselves 1200 years ago as well started brainwashing generations to come.

The most logical point for Jesus Salvation concept ?to be accepted? is proving that Jesus is the son of God first, if this is proven then 50% of the concept has been proven yet the Christians still need to prove that He died on the cross, and I can tell you mate, I debated Christians since I was a teen in my suburb in Egypt, as well online all around the world and read many books explaining the salvation concept and NEVER EVER found any logical/historical evidence that should make me start to think about its realism, for me it is a big lie, like the hadith exactly, let?s see first that none of the Bible writers believed that Jesus was a god or a son of a god for real

None of the Bible's Writers Believed that Jesus is God
Christians and Muslims both believe in Jesus, love him, and honour him. They are, however, divided over the question of his divinity. Fortunately, this difference can be resolved if we refer the question to both the Bible and the Quran, because, both the Bible and the Quran teach that Jesus is not God.

It is clear enough to everyone that the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus, so we do not need to spend much time explaining that. On the other hand, many people misunderstand the Bible; they feel that the belief in Jesus as God is so widespread that it must have come from the Bible. The following evidences will show quite conclusively that the Bible does not teach that. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is not God. In the Bible God is always someone other than Jesus.

Some will say that something Jesus said or something he did while on the earth proves that he is God. The evidences will show that the disciples never came to the conclusion that Jesus is God. And these are people who lived and walked with Jesus and thus knew first hand what he said and did. Furthermore, we are told in the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible that the disciples were being guided by the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is God, surely they should know it. But they did not. They kept worshipping the one true God who was worshipped by Abraham, Moses and Jesus

?The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.?
(The Acts ; 313)

All of the writers of the Bible believed that God was not Jesus. The idea that Jesus is God did not become part of Christian belief until after the Bible was written, and took many centuries to become part of the faith of Christians.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God

?And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.?
(see Mark ; 101

?And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.?
(Matthew ; 1917)

They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God

?And call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven.?
(Matthew ; 239}

?Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.?

?And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.?

Paul, believed to be the author of some thirteen or fourteen letters in the Bible, also believed that Jesus is not God. For Paul, God first created Jesus, then used Jesus as the agent by which to create the rest of creation

?Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature?
(Colossians ; 115)

?But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.?
(1Corinthians ; 86}

Similar ideas are found in the letter to the Hebrews, and also in the Gospel and Letters of John composed some seventy years after Jesus. In all of these writings, however, Jesus is still a creature of God and is therefore forever subservient to God

?And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.?
(1 Corinthians ; 1528}

Now, because Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was God?s first creature, some of what they wrote clearly show that Jesus was a pre-existent powerful being. This is often misunderstood to mean that he must have been God. But to say that Jesus was God is to go against what these very authors wrote. Although these authors had this later belief that Jesus is greater than all creatures, they also believed that he was still lesser than God. In fact, John quotes Jesus as saying

?The Father is greater than I?
(John ; 1428}

And Paul declares that the head of every woman is her husband, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God

?But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.?
(1 Corinthians ; 113}

Therefore, to find something in these writings and claim that these teach that Jesus is God is to misuse and misquote what those authors are saying. What they wrote must be understood in the context of their belief that Jesus is a creature of God as they have already clearly said.

So we see then, that some of the later writers had a higher view of Jesus, but none of the writers of the Bible believed that Jesus is God. The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one true God, the one whom Jesus worshipped

?And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.?
(John ; 173}

To be continued??

unknownuser

Hey agentxxx

hope you haven't got bored as we have a lot to talk about rergarding Jesus salvation, so far we could not see a hard and concrete evidence that Jesus is God, let's have a quick look at the Acts

Evidence From Acts of the Apostles
Jesus performed many miraculous wonders, and he without doubt said a lot of wonderful things about himself. Some people use what he said and did as proof that he was God. But his original disciples who lived and walked with him, and were eyewitnesses to what he said and did, never reached this conclusion. The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus was lifted up to heaven. Throughout this period they never refer to Jesus as God. They continually and consistently use the title God to refer to someone other than Jesus.

Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed the crowd saying

?Men of Israel, listen to this Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited to you by God with miracles, wonders and signs which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know?
(Acts 222)

It was God, therefore, who did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus was backed by God. Peter did not see the miracles as proof that Jesus is God.

In fact, the way Peter refers to God and to Jesus makes it clear that Jesus is not God. For he always turns the title God away from Jesus. Take the following references for example

?God has raised this Jesus . . .?
(Acts 232)

?God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ?
(Acts 236)

In both passages, the title God is turned away from Jesus. Why? ?if Jesus is God.

To Peter, Jesus was a servant of God. Peter said

?God raised up his servant", where the title servant refers to Jesus?
(Acts 326)

This is clear from a previous passage where Peter declared

?The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus?
(Acts 313)

Peter must have known that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never spoke of a Triune God. They always spoke of Jehovah (i.e. Yahweh) as the only God. Here, as in Matthew Jesus is the servant of Yahweh

?Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.?
(Matthew 121

If Matthew and Peter are right, then Jesus is not Yahweh, but Yahweh?s servant. This proves that Jesus is not God. The Old Testament repeatedly says that Yahweh is the only God

?I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me I girded thee, though thou hast not known me?
(Isaiah 45 5)

If Yahweh is the name of a triune God, then Jesus is excluded from the Godhead since in that case he would be the servant of the triune God. If, on the other hand, Yahweh is the name of the Father only, then the Father alone is God (since Yahweh alone is God) and Jesus is therefore not God. Either way, Jesus is not God. Peter and Matthew were both right about this.
All of the disciples of Jesus held this view. In Acts we are told that the believers prayed to God saying

?And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is?
(Acts 424)

And it is clear that the one they were praying to was not Jesus, because, three verses later, they referred to Jesus as

?For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed?
(Acts 427)

If Jesus was God, his disciples should have said this clearly. Instead, they kept preaching that Jesus was God?s Messiah. We are told in Acts

?Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah?
(Acts 541]

The Hebrew title Messiah (Christ in Greek) is a human title. It means ?Anointed.?, we see in Isaiah, Cyrus the Persian is called God?s Messiah

?Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;?
(Isaiah 451)

If Jesus was God, why would the disciples continually refer to him with human titles like servant and messiah of God, and consistently use the title God for the one who raised Jesus?

Did they fear men? No! They boldly preached the truth fearing neither imprisonment nor death. When they faced opposition from the authorities, Peter declared

?We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus . . .?
(Acts 529-30)

Were they lacking the Holy Spirit? No! They were supported by the Holy Spirit

?And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them??
(Acts 23)

?Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,??
(Acts 4

?And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.?
(Acts 532)

They were simply teaching what they had learnt from Jesus ? that Jesus was not God but, rather, God?s servant and Messiah.

The Quran confirms that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he was God?s servant

?(And remember ) when the angels said O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him , whose name is the Messiah , Jesus , son of Mary , illustrious in the world and the Hereafter , and one of those brought near ( unto Allah ) .?

?He spake Lo! I am the slave of Allah . He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet ,?

To be continued......

unknownuser

Hello mate

Again, so far we could not find one compelling evidence that Jesus was the son of god, my fellow Christain friends say that Jesus was called the son of God in the Bible, but the problem here my friend that not just Jesus was called as such but many others, this is like the sister of Aaron alleged contradiction we discussed bro, our Chrisitain brothers and sisters took what the Quran said about Mary as the sister of Aaron to be blood relation as they took what the Bible said about Jesus as if he is the bilogical son of our God, well, they have been cornered because here is what the Bible said about others and they need to kindly explain why they don't take the following as blood relationship

Jesus was calling his disciples as his children

?Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.?

Would that mean the disciples are also gods?. Because they were described as the children of Jesus ?the son of god?

In another location in John?s Gospel we see Jesus telling the Jews, that Satan is their father

?Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own for he is a liar, and the father of it.?

Would that mean all the Jews are the sons of the devil ?Satan?. And just appearing in a human form as the son of god Jesus did ?

In Luke, we read that Adam was the son of god

?Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.?

Would that mean Adam is exactly like Jesus and both are sons of god and consequently gods?

In Mark describing the leader who cried then died as the son of god

?And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.?

Would that mean that this human also is like Jesus, i.e. another son of god?

However we see Luke talking about the same man but instead of describing him as son of god, Luke described him as ?Certainly this was a righteous man.?

?Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.?

You see mate, Surely during this period of history, ?the son of god? really meant ?a righteous man?

To be continued.....

unknownuser

Hello bro

I'm sorry about the masses but believe me it is what you need to read and all very well supported and presented so it is not going to be boring to read.

Let's continue the refute. Jesus Christ teaching is quit substantial, but his short life and the immaturity of his people prevented him from completing the mission on which he had been sent into the world. It is also possible that his mission was by necessity of a limited nature, to pave the way for what was to come. Under either circumstances he had to confess, and that is how it has started

?I had many things to say to you, but you can not bear them now bear them now. When the Spirit comes, he will guide you into the truth?

The Gospel according to John reports the following part of speech which jesus made to his disciples during the Last Supper.

(5) ?But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me, 'Where are you going?'?

(6) ?But because I told you this, grief has filled your hearts.?

(7) ?But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.?

( ?And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation?

(9) ?sin, because they do not believe in me;?

(10) ?righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me;?

(11) ?condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.?

(12) "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.?

(13) But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.?

(14) ?He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.?

(15) ?Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.?

By this Jesus is informing his disciples that he is about to leave the world, that he has not accomplished his mission, but that another will come after him to teach the whole truth. That other one is called by various names according to the various versions of the Bible. The RSV calls him Counselor. King James version calls him Comforter. Whatever the title, the ?Counselor? was described by Jesus as the person who

A) would come after him
B) would convince the world of sin and righteousness and judgement
C) would guide mankind into all the truth
D) would not speak on his own authority, but whatever he would hear he would speak
E) would prophecy
F) would glorify Jesus Christ

Let?s examine this prophecy of Jesus as reported by John?s Gospel without any preconceived notions, and with perfect objectivity.

Many Christians with minds fully indoctrinated by Church authorities take it for granted that the prophecy refers to the holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, and the third person of the ever blessed incomprehensible Trinity. This belief is strengthened by the parenthetical insertion of the title ?the Holy Spirit? after ?Counselor? in John 1425. With the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying as the editors of the RSV Bible admit, it is easy to imagine the interpolation of such title as the Holy Spirit, either as an explanation believed by the original writer, or by any of the numerous manuscript copyist down the centuries as likely intention of Christ. The Holy Ghost or Spirit is one that is believed to have filled the disciples of Jesus and after them the Church authorities, generation after generation until today. What the Church does and says is claimed to be through the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as prophesied by Jesus in the above quoted passage from John?s Gospel

Since Christianity is divided into countless contradictory Churches or sects, it is difficult to see which one of them is the Holy Spirit working. Every one of these Churches claims that it alone is the true inheritor of the church alleged to have been established by Christ when he called Peter ?The rock on which he built his Church. Each Church has fundamental differences with other Churches. Even within the same church, say the Roman Catholic Church, the best organized and most monolithic of them all, we find different and contradictory doctrines an commandments issuing at different periods. Men and women who at one historic period have been excommunicated, condemned and even burnt at the stake, have by the same infallible Holy church been not only reinstated, but also canonized as saints, at other historic periods. The history of Christendom is full of such examples. And all this time we are to believe that the Holy Spirit, who according to Church teaching is God who never errs, is guiding all these conflicting men who issue conflicting doctrines and rulings through the centuries.

The ?Counselor?, Jesus said, would speak on God?s authority and not on his own, That statement alone is enough to demolish the theory that the prophecy refers to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, according to the Christian teaching is God. He could not only be said to be speaking on an authority not his own. This could only be said of mortal man, a man inspired, a prophet. That man would bring clear teachings as to sin, righteousness and judgment. His teachings must be clear and precise, and should be on a permanent record which is not subject to interpolation or change, so that all differences that might arise down the centuries could be resolved by reference to that impeccable record.

Finally, Jesus said, the Counselor would glorify him. Since the departure of Christ from mortal life, it is a historical fact that no one has appeared in any part of the globe who so closely fits expect the Prophet Mohammad. It is he who has claimed, and indeed has achieved, the completion of the mission of Jesus and all previous prophets. The Encyclopedia Britannica calls him ?The most successful of all prophets?. It is he who has convinced the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. It is he who has guided us into all the truth ? for he is the Spirit of the Truth. Indeed even as a youth before he became aware of his future mission he was known by his fellow citizens of pagan Mecca as Al-Amin, i.e. the Truthful. As an elderly man of over sixty, three months before his death, having completed his God-given task he told the assembled multitude, now all Muslims, quoting Allah?s words (for he spoke not on his own authority)

??..This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.?

...

Having guided the whole world into all the truth he recited Allah?s own words

?And say "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.?

(81)

To be continued.....

unknownuser

Peace

Let's continue bro, we have a lot to go through to refute this lie about Jesus

Jesus said that he had not said all that he wanted to say, but that he that was to come would do so and complete the work. The teachings of Mohammad on sin, on righteousness and on Judgment are embodied in the Quran, a book that is unique in the world in its purity, lack of contradictions and in its inimitability. Since its revelation to the illiterate Mohammad 1425 years ago not one word has changed, and it will not change, by the grace of Allah who is guarding it from the human corruption till the day of Judgment.

Sir William Muir, a well-known critic of Islam, wrote in his book The Life of Mohamet

?There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text?

and since Sir William Muir, wrote this another 225 years have rolled by and the truth has remained unchanged and pure as it was from day one of its complete revelation.

With regard to the Bible, however, there is not and can not be consistency, for the Bible is not one book but a collection of many books some Christians prefers specific gospels to the others, the Bible also written by numerous writers, many of whom are not even known. There is even disagreement among Christian Churches as to the books which are accepted as canonical i.e. authorized by church elders as to have been inspired, not revealed as the Quran was. The writing even in a single book may be contradictory, as noted in the conversion of Paul as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

Hugh Schonfield wrote in his book Those Incredible Christian

?Within the covers of the Bile we can meet with forgeries, manipulations and deliberate inventions just as much as outside it. Scholarship is well aware of this; but when a biblical work, especially in the New Testament, is evidently not by the person claiming to be the author everything is done to avid using the word forgery. The same is true of the sayings attributed to Jesus and known not to be genuine. We speak of such books as someone of the Pauline or Petrine school thought, of changed or invented sayings as ?secondary?. If we did not employ evasions it would appear that the Holy Spirit was an accessory of fraud.?

?It is on record, however, that down to the final determination of the canon of Scripture some of the books which are in the Bible were disputed. It was argued by quite orthodox Christians of the early centuries that certain books were not genuine productions of the apostolic authors by whom they purported to have been written. Occasionally the forger?s name was suggested. Paul mentions that in his own lifetime false letters in his name were in circulation. What had to be suited was what deemed to be the interests of the Church. Considerations having nothing to do with truthfulness were at work in the slant given to compositions and in the sentiments contrary to their own attitudes which various persons of note were made to express. All this kind of thing was a commonplace of the propaganda of antiquity, and what we have to appreciate is that it was a commonplace for the early Christians as well. This was the way the game of promotion and indoctrination was played. For those without scruples, who believe that ends justify means, it is so still?

The original or the books of the Bible are absent and unknown, hence the numerous versions. Admittedly the books as at present available are the works of ordinary human writers. However, some words or a divine origin may be discernible. But so mixed are these and so much interpolation has taken place that it is now almost impossible to tell the divine from the human. You cannot tell with any degree of probability which is the word of God and which is the word of a mere human who had a particular school to uphold or a particular axe to grind. Not so the Quran. Every word is Allah?s own. It is a direct speech as revealed, not just inspired, to the Prophet, and exactly as the prophet recited it straight away and faithfully scribes put down immediately and plenty others memorized it.

A Christian Dr. John B. Taylor, Reader in Islamic Studies in the Selly Oak Collages, Birmingham writes in his book Thinking About Islam

?We have established that Muslims do not speak of Mohammad?s writing that Quran, but of his receiving and reciting it. Just as Mohammad himself was conscious of the very special character of the Quranic text, so those Muslims after him took pains t preserve with complete accuracy all the fragments of the Quran. Only two years after Mohammad?s death, with the further loss in battle of those who had already memorized the Quran, the various fragments were collected??.?

?A few years later, in the reign of Uthman, the Third caliph, a final check was made on the text of the Quran. We can tell how careful and scrupulous the early Muslims were by the fact that even variations in pronunciations from one part from the Muslim world to another were disapproved of in the context of reciting the Quran; and so the official text was established in accordance with the dialect of Mecca, and most other versions were destroyed by command of Uthman. Thus we can feel confident the test which was established within a few years of the prophet death?

Those are the view of the Christian critic of Islam. The Quran is the unsullied word of Allah. That is what Jesus meant when he said of him who was to come

?He will not speak on his authority, but whatever he hears he will speak.?

Jesus was insulted not only by his avowed enemies, the Jews, but also unwittingly by those who considered themselves his followers. The Jews accused him of being a child born out of wedlock, and a charlatan. To prove that he was accursed they endeavored to cause his death by crucifixion, a mode of execution considered by them to be damnatory to the soul of the victim. Please see Deuteronomy 21.22.23. They denied that he was their Messiah.

The Christians in their part, in their over zeal, and deluded by subtle wolves in sheep?s clothing, swallowed the teachings of Mithraism, Greek mythology and other contemporary Mediterranean cults, and placed Jesus on the pedestal of a pagan god. Jesus who was the son of man, Ben Adam, as he was fond of calling himself, a Prophet and a servant of God, was debased into a pseudo polytheistic god, and became surrounded with legends of propitiation by blood, legends which were current at the time within the cults of Osiris, Attis Adonis and Mithra. There was nothing new in a god begetting a son. There was nothing new in a ?holy trinity.? There was nothing new in the salvation by blood. All these doctrines were prevalent in the pagan cults in the eastern Mediterranean region before the coming of Jesus Christ and during his lifetime. What was new, strange and revolting was to graft these myths on the very man who came to abolish them.

Death on the cross
It was prophet Mohammad who came and glorified Jesus. He countered the accusations of the Jews, and tore down the pagan trappings with which Jesus was no more illegitimate than Adam, His mother Mary, whom the Jews castigated as a prostitute was given a place of greater honor in the Quran than the Christian Bible. To a people who believed in the creation of Adam with neither father nor mother why should it be difficult to believe in the creation of Jesus without a father?

?God is able from these stones to raise up the children of Abraham?

To the hostile Jews Mohammad confirmed that Jesus was the Christ foretold in the Jews own scripture. He taught that the Jews were speaking an untruth when they claimed to have inflicted an ignoble death on Jesus by hanging him on a cross

(157)?That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not-?

(15 ?Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-?

(159) ?And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-?

(157)
(15
(159)

And to the Christians, a warning to repent which is a mercy for them, was revealed to stop their excesses in their religion

(171) ?O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" desist it will be better for you for Allah is one Allah Glory be to Him (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.?

(172) ?Christ disdaineth nor to serve and worship Allah, nor do the angels, those nearest (to Allah) those who disdain His worship and are arrogant,-He will gather them all together unto Himself to (answer).?

(171)
(172)

Modern Biblical research proves this Quranic truth. It is known that there are other Gospels which have different versions of Christ?s passion from that narrated in the four canonical Gospels. The other Gospels were not approved officially by the Church when the Bible was compiles towards the end of the second century. Lately new light has been cast on the beliefs of the early Christians by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, These early Christians knows as Nasoreans or Nazarenes (which tallies with the Quranic name for the follower of Jesus ?Nassara?) were predominant to start with.. The Nazarenes who claimed descent from Jesus?s first disciples came into conflict with Pauline Christians (who follow Paul) and were driven out of Palestine into Syria around 62 AD. The Nazarenes regarded Jesus as a great prophet and righteous man. They accused Paul of heretically substituting Roman customs for the authentic teachings of Jesus and proclaiming him to be God. They refused to celebrate Christmas which they regarded as a pagan feast.

The version of Christ?s Passion contained in the manuscript is that Judas tricked the Jews by substituting another man in place of Jesus. This other man vehemently denied before Herod and Pilate the charge that he claimed to be the Messiah (Christ). According to this version is was Herod, and not Pilat, who took a basin of water and washed his hands of the accused man?s blood to show that he did not find any guilt in him. Then Herod locked up the supposed Jesus for the night; but the next morning he was seized upon by the Jesus who tortured him and ultimately crucified him.

This version of the story of crucifixion makes the pathetic lamentations attributed by canonical Gospels to Jesus on the cross more sensible. For an ordinary unknown man to behave in such a way is excusable. But for the man of God to declare at the time of trial, or even for a leader of a people with guts in him, to cry out aloud in front of a crowd

?My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me??

is to set the least below dignity of a leader.

If the crucified man was Jesus, and if Jesus was God who knew that He had come down to earth in order to be crucified for the sins of humanity, the absurdity would be shattering.

Upton Sinclair wrote in his book A Personal Jesus

?You perceive that those who tell the story cannot make up their mind whether Jesus is God or whether he is man. Truly it is a difficult problem, once you admit such thing as a possibility that God may take on form of a man and come down to earth. When he becomes man, is He man or is He still God? And how can He be betrayed, when He knows He is going to be betrayed? The legend never answers clearly for basically it is an absurdity and there can be no answer, nor even any rational thought on such subject.?

?If Jesus is God, He knows everything in advance. But in that case the procedure means nothing to Him, He is like an actor going through a role, and it must have been a rather tedious role to Omniscience. Is He doing it for the entertainment of children? If so, why not encourage the children to grow up mentally and face the truth? On the other hand, if he is a man and has the mind of a man, then he no longer knows the truth, he no longer posses the comfort of omniscience. The legend requires that we shall believe both these things at the same time; but manifestly, a man cannot know something and at the same time grop half-blindly as we human beings are doing all through our lives.?

The riddle which perplexes honest intelligent readers of the Gospels like Upton Sinclair is resolved by the Nasorean version of the story of crucifixion. By that version Jesus is absolved from cowardice, fickleness and shallowness of faith in God as shamefully and cowardly demonstrated by the crucified man. The fickleness and detection of the disciples as reported in the Gospels also fall into position if we take it that the crucified man was not their Messiah. The disciples are therefore cleared from the charges of cowardice, treachery, falsehood and lack of faith in their leader at the most critical time. The man they sold, denied or doubted was truly unknown to them. He was not their Master.

The ?apocryphal? (hidden Gospel of Barnabas reports that it was Judas who was crucified in the place of Jesus, and the Basildon sect of the early Christians believed that it was Simon the Cyrene who was crucified, not Jesus. According to all three synoptic Gospels it was this man who made to carry the cross for Jesus. Only John makes Jesus carry his cross. This is a significant point.

Other scholars basing their research on the canonical Gospels have different versions of the crucifixion. One such is Biblical scholar Dr. Hugh Scohnfield. who has forwarded his findings in his highly controversial book The Passover Plot. He maintains that it was Jesus who was nailed on the cross, but that he did not die there; he only appeared dead by taking a drug which is described in Matthew?s Gospel as vinegar.

To be continued.....

unknownuser

Hello mate

Let's see how Mohammad glorified Jesus peace be upon them. which confirms John passages prophecy about the Comforter

Jesus in the Glorious Quran
The Quran tells us a lot of wonderful things about Jesus. As a result, believers in the Quran love Jesus, honour him, and believe in him. In fact, no Muslim can be a Muslim unless he or she believes in Jesus equal to the belief in Mohammad, peace be upon them.

The Quran says that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he spoke while he was still only a baby, that he healed the blind and the leper by God?s leave, and that he raised the dead by God?s leave.

What then is the significance of these miracles? First, the virgin birth. God demonstrates his power to create in every way. God created everyone we know from a man and a woman. But how about Adam, on whom be peace? God created him from neither a man nor a woman. And Eve from only a man, but not a woman. And, finally, to complete the picture, God created Jesus from a woman, but not a man.

What about the other miracles? These were to show that Jesus was not acting on his own behalf, but that he was backed by God. The Quran specifies that these miracles were performed by God?s leave. This may be compared to the Book of Acts in the Bible, chapter 2, verse 22, where it says that the miracles were done by God to show that he approved of Jesus.

Also, note that Jesus himself is recorded in the Gospel of John to have said

?I can do nothing of my own authority?
(John ;530)

The miracles, therefore, were done not by his own authority, but by God?s authority.
What did Jesus teach? The Quran tells us that Jesus came to teach the same basic message which was taught by previous prophets from God?that we must shun every false god and worship only the one true God.

Jesus taught that he is the servant and messenger of that one true God, the God of Abraham. These Quranic teachings can be compared with the Bible ( Mark 1018; Matthew 2639; John 1428, 173, and 2017) where Jesus teaches that the one he worshipped is the only true God. See also Matthew 1218; Acts 313, and 427 where we find that his disciples knew him as Servant of God.

The Quran tells us that some of the Israelites rejected Jesus, and conspired to kill him, but Allah (God) rescued Jesus and raised him to Himself. Allah will cause Jesus to descend again, at which time Jesus will confirm his true teachings and everyone will believe in him as he is and as the Quran teaches about him.

Jesus is the Messiah. He is a word from Allah, and a spirit from Him. He is honoured in this world and in the hereafter, and he is one of those brought nearest to Allah.

Jesus was a man who spoke the truth which he heard from God. This can be compared with the Gospel According to John where Jesus says to the Israelites

?You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God?
(John 840)

Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. When the angels announced to Mary (peace be upon her) about Allah?s promise that she will have a son, she was surprised, since she was a virgin. ?How can this be?? she thought. She was reminded that it is easy for Allah to create whatever he wills.

?She said My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only Be! and it is.?

It is not difficult for Allah to do anything he wants. He can create a child with both human parents or only one. No miracle is beyond His power. After all, He had created Adam (peace be upon him) from neither a man nor a woman. He created the rest of us from both man and woman. What is so hard if Allah decides to create a human being from a woman only? He only commands ?Be!? and it occurs.

Some people think that since Jesus, peace be upon him, had no human father then God must be his father. The Quran rejects this view. The position of Jesus with Allah is comparable to the position of Adam with Allah. Just because Adam had no human parent does not mean we should call him the Son of God.

?Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then He said unto him Be! and he is.?

According to the Quran, everyone except Allah are His servants.

?And they say the Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a Son. Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing, whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall to ruins, that ye ascribe to the Beneficent a son, when it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should chose a son. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave.?

According to the Quran, Jesus, on whom be peace, performed the following miracles by Allah?s leave

Spoke while he was only a baby.
Healed those born blind.
Healed the lepers.
Revived the dead.
Breathed life into a bird made of clay.

In the Quran Allah quotes Jesus, peace be upon him, as saying

?Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird by Allah?s leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah?s leave. And I announce to you what you eat and what you store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you if you are to be believers. And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me. Lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.?

Again, in the Quran Allah tells us about the situation on the Day of Judgement

?In the day when Allah gathers together the messengers and says What was your response (from mankind)? they say We have no knowledge. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. When Allah says O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto you and unto your mother; how I strengthened you with the holy Spirit, so that you spoke unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught you the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how you did shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and did blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and you did heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission . . .?

Not all of these miracles are recorded in the canonical gospels, the four gospels contained in the Christian Bible.

The fact that Jesus spoke while he was yet a baby is not written anywhere in the Bible. This should not be surprising, because none of the Gospels can claim to recover every single event in the life of Jesus. Instead, the gospel According to John seeks to emphasize that the events were too many to record.

Similarly, the miracle of breathing life into a bird made of clay is not attested by the Christian Bible. This too should not make us wonder. It is obvious that the writers of the gospels could write down only the tradition that was available to them. Furthermore, they could not write down everything they knew about Jesus for they were writing on papyrus material that were very limited in length.

What is worthy to notice here is that the Prophet Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, was honest enough to promulgate this information about Jesus and glorify him and his mother virgin Mary. The religion taught by God through Muhammad would deny the divinity of Jesus. Any human being, therefore, who wished to deny the divinity of Jesus would have tried to belittle Jesus. Since Christians looked upon the miracles of Jesus as a proof of his divinity, we might expect that any human being who tries to deny the divinity of Jesus would not have informed people of miracles not previously known to them. He might have even tried to deny some of the miracles recorded in the canonical gospels. On the other hand, the prophet Muhammad honestly conveyed the message delivered to him from Allah.

Allah tells us the truth without fear. Human beings trying to win followers tell us only what is conducive to winning us over. They usually withhold information that could lead to opposite conclusions. On the other hand, Allah informs us about the miracles of Jesus even if people use this information to support their prior commitment to the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. Allah does not need to win worshippers. Those who worship Allah does so for their own good. And those who worship false gods do so to their own detriment.

What Allah emphasizes, though, is that the miracles of Jesus do not prove he was divine. The miracles he performed were a sign, a proof, that he was God?s messenger. He performed them with God?s help and permission. Those who use his miracles as proof of his divinity would choose to forget the following sayings of Jesus

?I can of my own authority do nothing.?
(John 530)

They also forget the declaration of Peter

?Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know.?
(Acts 222 KJV)

These passages suggest that Jesus did not do miracles on his own. These, rather were accomplished by God?s leave. Allah reminds us of this. Jesus also constantly repeated to his audience that the miracles he performed were by God?s leave.

Sorry bro, I told you it is the big one hence to be continued.....

unknownuser

Hello again

I have to say sorry to the admin for my long comments bu I can see its importance regarding a very important issue in the history of mankind

They killed him not

It is a fact that any careful impartial reader of the four Gospels which are in the Bible will derive strong evidence to show that the man who was put on the cross did not die on the cross, but only appeared to have died. In those same Gospels there is also overwhelming evidence, in spite of the writers? own belief to the contrary, that it was possible and indeed likely, and that the crucified man was not Jesus Christ at all.

It is a fact that Jesus was not a well-known person a time in Jerusalem. To the people who were hunting for him he was a stranger, a rustic from Galilee. He had been preaching his faith for only two or three years, wandering from place to place with no fixed abode. (Matthew 8.20). During that time he could not have visited Jerusalem more than a few times. The earliest Gospel, Mark, says he had been there only once, while the latest, John, says four times. So little known was he that it is related Judas had to point out to his would ? be captors by pretending to kiss him. Thus it would be nothing unusual if they mistook somebody else for Jesus. The Gospels tell us that when he was arrested all his disciples left him alone and ran away. Even his closest disciple, Peter, denied any knowledge of him, saying

?I do not know this man. ?

It is difficult to believe that among all his disciples who he himself had especially selected with due care; there could not have been a single one who even acknowledge that he knew him. To say that this was in fulfillment of a prophecy s to bow to faith, and to stretch reason to breaking point.

Moreover the answers that the accused gave in court during cross examination were not such as to indicate that he was Jesus Christ. At best the accused prevaricated. All the three synoptic Gospels describing the court scene failed to produce one piece of evidence which would prove the identity of the accused. Luke says that when he was ordered ?If you are the Christ, tell us,? his answer was merely ?If tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer.? When he was asked a point blank question ?Are you the Son of God?? he retorted ?You say that I am.?

Matthew reports

?and the high priest stood up and said, ?Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you.? But Jesus was silent. And the high priest stood up and said, ?I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.? Jesus said to him, ?You have said so. But I tell you hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.??

Mind you, these narratives even in their original form were written decades after the events, and are related by men who sincerely believe that it was Jesus Christ who was crucified, and yet even they have produced the evidence of only one man, Judas, a shady informer; and that evidence was not given under oath in open court, but merely by implication, a kiss purported to indicated Jesus Christ from among a crowed to frenzied mob of fanatics.

When we take into serious consideration this reasoning, together with previously related versions narrated by the Gospels other than those included in the Bible and the ancient manuscripts recently discovered which tell of early Christian beliefs that Jesus was not crucified the truth of the Quran becomes crystal clear.

?But they killed him not, nor crucified him but so it was made to apprear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow. For a surety they killed him not.?

And the Quran was revealed to an unlettered man fourteen centuries ago. Modern Western scholars now accept the Quranic version of the story of Jesus.

The Quran however did not mention the name of the person killed in place of Jesus, in a way it is not important to know, what was important to know that God with His supreme powers will NOT let his servant Jesus Christ to be humiliated, spat at, pissed at, bashed, nailed, spiked then left hanged in the open to die for further humiliation. However regarding the identity of the perpetrator, I lean to believe the hidden Gospel of Barnabas version (214-21, that it was Judas himself who was crucified in place of Jesus

(214) Judas Betrays
?Having gone forth from the house, Jesus retired into the garden to pray, according as his custom was to pray, bowing his knees an hundred times and prostrating himself upon his face. Judas, accordingly, knowing the place where Jesus was with his disciples, went to the high priest, and said "If you will give me what was promised, this night will I give into your hand Jesus whom you seek; for he is alone with eleven companions." The high priest answered "How much do you seek?" Judas said, "Thirty pieces of gold."

?Then straightway the high priest counted to him the money, and sent a Pharisee to the governor to fetch soldiers, and to Herod, and they gave a legion of them, because they feared the people; wherefore they took their arms, and with torches and lanterns upon staves went out of Jerusalem.?

(215) Divine Rescue of Jesus
?When the soldiers with Judas drew near to the place where Jesus was, Jesus heard the approach of many people, wherefore in fear he withdrew into the house. And the eleven were sleeping. Then God, seeing the danger of his servant, commanded Gabriel;, Michael;, Rafael;, and Uriel, his ministers, to take Jesus out of the world. The holy angels came and took Jesus out by the window that looks toward the South;. They bare him and placed him in the third heaven in the company of angels blessing God for evermore.?

(216) Judas Transformed
?Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. Whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus. And he, having awakened us, was seeking where the Master was. Whereupon we marvelled, and answered 'You, Lord, are our master; have you now forgotten us?'?

?And he, smiling, said 'Now are you foolish, that know not me to be Judas Iscariot!' And as he was saying this the soldiery entered, and laid their hands upon Judas, because he was in every way like to Jesus. We having heard Judas' saying, and seeing the multitude of soldiers, fled as beside ourselves. And John, who was wrapped in a linen cloth, awoke and fled, and when a soldier seized him by the linen cloth he left the linen cloth and fled naked. For God heard the prayer of Jesus, and saved the eleven from evil.?

(217) Judas Scourged and Mocked
?The soldiers took Judas ;and bound him, not without derision. For he truthfully denied that he was Jesus; and the soldiers, mocking him, said 'Sir, fear not, for we are come to make you king of Israel, and we have bound you because we know that you do refuse the kingdom.' Judas answered 'Now have you lost your senses! You are come to take Jesus of Nazareth;, with arms and lanterns as a robber; and you have bound me that have guided you, to make me king!'?

?Then the soldiers lost their patience, and with blows and kicks they began to flout Judas, and they led him with fury into Jerusalem. John ;and Peter ;followed the soldiers afar off; and they affirmed to him who writes that they saw all the examination that was made of Judas by the high priest, and by the council of the Pharisees, who were assembled to put Jesus to death. Whereupon Judas spoke many words of madness, insomuch that every one was filled with laughter, believing that he was really Jesus, and that for fear of death he was feigning madness. Whereupon the scribes bound his eyes with a bandage, and mocking him said 'Jesus, prophet of the Nazarenes ;(for so they called them who believed in Jesus), 'tell us, who was it that smote you?' And they buffeted him and spat in his face.?

?When it was morning there assembled the great council of scribes and elders of the people; and the high priest with the Pharisees sought false witness against Judas, believing him to be Jesus and they found not that which they sought. And why say I that the chief priests believed Judas to be Jesus? No all the disciples, with him who writes, believed it; and more, the poor Virgin mother of Jesus, with his kinsfolk and friends, believed it, insomuch that the sorrow of every one was incredible.?

?As God lives, he who writes forgot all that Jesus had said how that he should be taken up from the world, and that he should suffer in a third person, and that he should not die until near the end of the world. Wherefore he went with the mother of Jesus and with John to the cross. The high priest caused Judas ;to be brought before him bound, and asked him of his disciples and his doctrine. Whereupon Judas, as though beside himself, answered nothing to the point. The high priest then adjured him by the living God of Israel that he would tell him the truth.?

?Judas answered 'I have told you that I am Judas Iscariot, who promised to give into your hands Jesus the Nazarene; and you, by what are I know not, are beside yourselves, for you will have it by every means that I am Jesus.' The high priest answered 'O perverse seducer, you have deceived all Israel, beginning from Galilee ;even to Jerusalem here, with your doctrine and false miracles and now think you to flee the merited punishment that befits you by feigning to be mad??

?As God lives,' you shall not escape it!' And having said this he commanded his servants to smite him with buffetings and kicks, so that his understanding might come back into his head. The derision which he then suffered at the hands of the high priest's servants is past belief. For they zealously devised new inventions to give pleasure to the council. So they attired him as a juggler, and so treated him with hands and feet that it would have moved the very Canaanites to compassion if they had beheld that sight. But the chief priests and Pharisees and elders of the people had their hearts so exasperated against Jesus that, believing Judas to be really Jesus, they took delight in seeing him so treated.?

?Afterwards they led him bound to the governor, who secretly loved Jesus. Whereupon he, thinking that Judas was Jesus, made him enter into his chamber, and spoke to him, asking him for what cause the chief priests and the people had given him into his hands. Judas answered 'If I tell you the truth, you will not believe me; for perhaps you are deceived as the (chief) priests and the Pharisees are deceived.'?

?The governor answered (thinking that he wished to speak concerning the Law) 'Now know you not that I am not a Jew? but the (chief) priests and the elders of your people have given you into my hand; wherefore tell us the truth, wherefore I may do what is just. For I have power to set you free and to put you to death.' Judas answered 'Sir, believe me, if you put me to death, you shall do a great wrong, for you shall slay an innocent person; seeing that I am Judas ;Iscariot, and not Jesus, who is a magician, and by his are has so transformed me.'?

?When he heard this the governor marvelled greatly, so that he sought to set him at liberty. The governor therefore went out, and smiling said 'In the one case, at least, this man is not worthy of death, but rather of compassion.' 'This man says,' said the governor, 'that he is not Jesus, but a certain Judas who guided the soldiery to take Jesus, and he says that Jesus the Galilean has by his are magic so transformed him. Wherefore, if this be true, it were a great wrong to kill him, seeing that he were innocent. But if he is Jesus and denies that he is, assuredly he has lost his understanding, and it were impious to slay a madman.'?

?Then the chief priests and elders of the people, with the scribes and Pharisees, cried out with shouts, saying 'He is Jesus of Nazareth;, for we know him; for if he were not the malefactor we would not have given him into your hands. Nor is he mad; but rather malignant, for with this device he seeks to escape from our hands, and the sedition that he would stir up if he should escape would be worse than the former.' Pilate (of such was the governor's name), in order to rid himself of such a case, said 'He is a Galilean, and Herod is king of Galilee wherefore it pertains not to me to judge such a case, so take you him to Herod.'?

?Accordingly they led Judas to Herod, who of a long time had desired that Jesus should go to his house. But Jesus had never been willing to go to his house, because Herod was a Gentile, and adored the false and lying gods, living after the manner of the unclean Gentiles. Now when Judas had been led thither, Herod asked him of many things, to which Judas gave answers not to the purpose, denying that he was Jesus. Then Herod mocked him, with all his court, and caused him to be clad in white as the fools are clad;, and sent him back to Pilate, saying to him, 'Do not fail in justice to the people of Israel!' * And this Herod wrote, because the chief priests and scribes and the Pharisees had given him a good quantity of money. The governor having heard that this was so from a servant of Herod, in order that he also might gain some money, feigned that he desired to set Judas at liberty.?

?Whereupon he caused him to be scourged by his slaves, who were paid by the scribes to slay him under the scourges. But God, who had decreed the issue, reserved Judas for the cross, in order that he might suffer that horrible death to which he had sold another. He did not suffer Judas to die under the scourges, notwithstanding that the soldiers scourged him so grievously that his body rained blood. Thereupon, in mockery they clad him in an old purple garment;, saying 'It is fitting to our new king to clothe him and crown him' so they gathered thorns and made a crown, like those of gold and precious stones which kings wear on their heads. And this crown of thorns they placed upon Judas' head, putting in his hand a reed for sceptre;, and they made him sit in a high place.?

?And the soldiers came before him, bowing down in mockery, saluting him as King of the Jews. And they held out their hands to receive gifts, such as new kings are accustomed to give; and receiving nothing they smote Judas, saying 'Now, how are you crowned, foolish king, if you will not pay your soldiers and servants?' *The chief priests with the scribes and Pharisees, seeing that Judas died not by the scourges, and fearing lest Pilate should set him at liberty, made a gift of money to the governor, who having received it gave Judas to the scribes and Pharisees as guilty to death. Whereupon they condemned two robbers with him to the death of the cross.?

?So they led him to Mount Calvary, where they used to hang malefactors, and there they crucified him naked;, for the greater ignominy. *Judas truly did nothing else but cry out 'God, why have you forsaken me, seeing the malefactor has escaped and I die unjustly?' *Truly I say that the voice, the face, and the person of Judas were so like to Jesus, that his disciples and believers entirely believed that he was Jesus; wherefore some departed from the doctrine of Jesus, believing that Jesus had been a false prophet, and that by art magic he had done the miracles which he did for Jesus had said that he should not die till near the end of the world; for that at that time he should be taken away from the world.?

?But they that stood firm in the doctrine of Jesus were so encompassed with sorrow, seeing him die who was entirely like to Jesus, that they remembered not what Jesus had said. And so in company with the mother of Jesus they went to Mount Calvary, and were not only present at the death of Judas, weeping continually, but by means of Nicodemus and Joseph of Abarimathia; they obtained from the governor the body of Judas to bury it. Whereupon, they took him down from the cross with such weeping as assuredly no one would believe, and buried him in the new sepulchre of Joseph; having wrapped him up in an hundred pounds of precious ointments.?

(21 Judas Crucified
?Then returned each man to his house. He who writes, with John and James his brother, went with the mother of Jesus; to Nazareth.?

?Those disciples who did not fear God went by night stole the body of Judas and hid it, spreading a report that Jesus was risen again; whence great confusion arose. The high priest then commanded, under pain of anathema;, that no one should talk of Jesus of Nazareth;. And so there arose a great persecution, and many were stoned and many beaten, and many banished from the land, because they could not hold their peace on such a matter.?

?The news reached Nazareth how that Jesus, their fellow citizen, having died on the cross was risen again. Whereupon, he that writes; prayed the mother of Jesus; that she would be pleased to leave off weeping, because her son was risen again. Hearing this, the Virgin Mary, weeping, said 'Let us go to Jerusalem to find my son. I shall die content when I have seen him.'?

To be continued.....

unknownuser

Ok mate, the last comment regarding alleged contradiction #1, i will skip the Dead Sea Scrolls part unless you want to read it, and I'm sorry again for the long comments, this one is by a sincere brother in Islam called Usamah Abdullah and my great thanks and appreciation to his work

Jesus in the Bible guaranteed Paradise to non-Trinitarians
When I debate with Christians, they generally say that the only way a person can get saved and go to Heaven is to believe and accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior who died for him on the cross to purify him from his sins. Anyone who doesn't believe in this would not be saved. They always bring the following verses from the Bible as a proof to this claim

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ?
(From the NIV Bible, John 146)

"that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ?
(From the NIV Bible, John 315-17)

Note John 315-17 is discussed in a separate section below in this article, since they are not a direct quote from Jesus himself in the New Testament.

It is important to know that most of the Bible, especially the New Testament, has general and controversial statements like this one. This verse might sound like a clear proof for the Trinitarians, but as we read the verses below, we will see that it really doesn't mean that the person HAS TO ACCEPT JESUS AS HIS MEDIATOR between him and GOD Almighty to be saved. Let us read the following

"If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself, ' you are doing right.?
(From the NIV Bible, James 2

"The entire law is summed up in a single command 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' ?
(From the NIV Bible, Galatians 514)

Jesus said loving GOD Almighty so much and being nice to your neighbours will cause you to have eternal life

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live. ?
(Luke 1025-2

Notice that the man's question was straight forward

"What must I do to inherit eternal life?"

No other question can be more straight forward than this. Notice how Jesus answered this straight forward question

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart......and love your neighbour as yourself......Do this and you will live. ?

Notice that Jesus didn't talk about any trinity-lie concept, nor did he say to the man that he must accept Jesus as a mediator between him and GOD Almighty to win Eternal Life. Jesus was pretty clear and straight forward here LOVE GOD ALMIGHTY AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORS AS YOURSELF. That is simply all there is to it to win eternal life in Jesus' standards.

It certainly wasn't necessary for the man who asked the question to believe in trinity in order for him to be saved. Jesus assured him Paradise if he believed otherwise.

Unless there is a different meaning to "Eternal Life", I don't see how any fundamentalist polytheist trinitarian pagan can answer this dilemma that exists in his/her core beliefs!

Jesus a second time confirmed that the Law of Moses is the way to "Eternal Life"
We saw above in Luke 1025-28 how Jesus confirmed that the Law of Moses is the way to "Eternal Life". Here is another incident where Jesus was asked the same exact question by another person

A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
You know the commandments 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother. ' "
"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. "
When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.
Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!
Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God
will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life. ?
( Luke 1818-30)

Again, we see in Luke 1818 above, the same exact question was asked to Jesus for the second time on a different occasion

"What must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Again, no other question can be more straight forward than this.

Notice, first of all, in Luke 1819 how Jesus refutes the lie about him being GOD Almighty. He clearly put himself below GOD Almighty and as only a creation of GOD Almighty when he said

"Why do you call me good?....No one is good--except God alone." ?

Notice the exclusivity that Jesus gave to GOD Almighty when he said "GOD alone." , and also when he said "No one (including Jesus) is good".

Notice in Luke 1820 how Jesus referred back to the Law of Moses. ?The Law of Moses is the way to Eternal Life according to Jesus.? Jesus was twice confronted with the same question, and he twice had made it clear that the Law of Moses is the way to Paradise.

Now in Luke 1822, we see Jesus adding another condition to the man only because the man was rich. But the bottom line of Jesus' stand is still the same

Honor the Law of Moses and you will win the Eternal Life in Paradise.

More blessings and winning of Eternal Life
Here are more quotes that refute the dogma of trinity and the lie of accepting of Jesus as the mediator between you and GOD Almighty in order for you to win eternal life

"In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'?
( Acts 2034-36 )

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ?
( Matthew 59-11 )

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. ?
(Matthew 58-10 )

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. ?
(Matthew 55-7)

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. ?
(Matthew 56-

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. ?
(Matthew 57-9)

"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. ?
(Matthew 53-5)

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. ?
(Matthew 54-6)

"Here, O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord. ?
(Mark 1229)

The book of Ezekiel and the Old Testament clearly and directly refutes the "Salvation through trinity" lie!
The following verses from the Book of Ezekiel

"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.?
(From the King James Version Bible, Isaiah 4311)

"Hear, O Israel The LORD our God, the LORD is one.?
(From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 64)

"But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself. ?
(From the NIV Bible, Ezekiel 319-21)

As we clearly see, the Old Testament clearly and directly refutes the nonsense about salvation can only be obtained through believing in Jesus Christ as "GOD" who died on the cross for your sins. How do these verses from the book of Ezekiel supposed to agree with all of the lies in the New Testament about Salvation? And ironically, and as we've seen above, the topic of Salvation in the New Testament is in contradiction! The Bible has the worst contradictions and inconsistencies in the most important topic, Salvation!

So what is the way that Jesus talked about in John 146 then?
When Jesus said

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
(From the NIV Bible, John 146),

if we take the meanings of this verse in the same context in Luke 1025-28 and the other verses that teach about love, harmony and forgiveness, then we would clearly see that the way that Jesus talked about is the goodness in you.

If you love GOD Almighty with your heart and soul and you are a good person and love people and always try to be the best example to every person you meet (as clearly emphasized and stretched in the verses above), then you will win the Eternal Life. Accepting Jesus as the mediator between you and GOD Almighty (believing that Jesus died on the cross to purify your sins) is not necessary to win Eternal Life, and according to the Early Christians' doctrines during the 1st and 2nd centuries, Jesus never got crucified anyway, which is exactly what Islam also claims.

Like I said above, it certainly wasn't necessary for the men who asked the question about "Eternal Life" to believe in trinity in order for them to be saved. Jesus assured them Paradise if they believed otherwise.

Jesus in John 174 further clarifies the Salvation concept and refutes the "closed-minded" Christians
Most Christians today believe that if a person doesn't believe that Jesus died on the cross for his/her sins, then there is not even the least chance for that person to enter Paradise. Jesus in John 174 refuted this gibberish nonsense. Let us look at what Jesus peace be upon him said in John 171-10

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed
"Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.
Now this is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.
Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you.
For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.
(John 171-10)

As we clearly see in John 174, Jesus declared the completion of his work that GOD Almighty had assigned to him on earth. In John 178, he prayed for all of those who followed him and believed in him and in the Commands that he brought to them from GOD Almighty. In John 1710, Jesus said that his glory is given to him (Jesus) through them.

All of this clearly refutes the gibberish nonsense that most Christians claim about non-Trinitarians and those who don't believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins are going to Hell. As I showed above in the article, Jesus only cared about the love of GOD Almighty and the love of neighbors and people in general.

And for those who believe that Jesus was GOD Almighty Himself, i.e. the Creator of the Universe, when Isaiah prophesied about the coming of Jesus, he said that GOD Almighty will put the spirit of fearing GOD in Jesus. Let us have a read

2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD ?

3 and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;

4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
(Isaiah 112-5)

How can Jesus be the creator of the Universe when GOD Almighty had put the spirit of fearing GOD Almighty in him?

People who are like "Children" will win Paradise in Matthew 181-4
Jesus peace be upon him never claimed that people are sinners and they will never enter the Kingdom of GOD Almighty except if they believe in the crucifixion nonsense. All what a person needs to enter Heaven in Jesus' standards is to humble him/herself like a child, i.e., be as innocent as a child. Let us look at Matthew 181-4 to see who will be the Greatest in the Kingdom of GOD Almighty

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them.
And he said "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. ?
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 181-4)

Again, another straight forward question was asked to Jesus peace be upon him. Notice again that Jesus didn't put the crucifixion nonsense as a standard, nor did he ever mention it, or even cared about it. All what Jesus wants from his followers is to believe in GOD Almighty and be good to their neighbours as clearly explained in the first section of this article above, and to be as humble as little children.

So is Jesus the salvation or not?!
When one reads

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. ?
(From the NIV Bible, Mark 1229)

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ?
(From the NIV Bible, John 146)

"The entire law is summed up in a single command 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'?
(From the NIV Bible, Galatians 514)

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." ?
(Luke 1025-2

And all of the other verses mentioned above, he would clearly see that the Bible's interpretation by the polytheist trinitarian pagans and fundamentalists is bogus. According to the verses I mentioned above, Jesus in the NT is clearly not the only salvation to GOD Almighty. Otherwise, we are left with a major CONTRADICTION in the Bible between Jesus being the only salvation to GOD Almighty, and Jesus not being the only one.

What bothers me the most from trinity is that it is all based on man's interpretation. The word itself, "trinity", does not even exist in the Bible. Not even once! Yet, it is the central faith to most Christians today, who are no other than polytheist trinitarian pagans, unfortunately.

What about John 316 - "For God loved the world that he gave his one and only son...."

Let us look at the following verses

"that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.?
(From the NIV Bible, John 315-17)

First of all, it is important to know that John 315-17 is not a quote from Jesus himself in the Bible. It is a quote that exist in the so-called "Gospel of John", but the Gospel itself according to the theologians and historians of the NIV Bible had been tampered with and altered by men, along with most of the Bible's books and gospels.
The interpretation of John 316 can mean that if one doesn't believe in Jesus as the "son of God", and that he died on the cross for our sins, then the person will not have an Eternal Life in Paradise. The problem with this, however, is that

"Son of God" in Hebrew literally means "Servant of God"

I firmly believe that this alleged contradiction is refuted for good, I wonder thoughwhy they keep bringing it on the table for years and years, I will have a rest for a couple of days bro then continue responding to the other alleged contradictions

Pecae be with you

Thanks for reading

http//mail.forte.com.au/ahmed/ag_end.gif

agentxxx

Peace Ahmed
Thanks brother for the invaluable information that you have provided for me, especially from the bible. Insha Allah when this discussion ends, I will have more information then most of the so-called scholars in Pakistan.
Regarding Jesus Christ?s status as ?God or Son of God? I think sura al-ikhlaas is enough for us ) .

1121-Say He is Allah the One and Only;
1122-Allah the Eternal Absolute;
1123-He begetteth not nor is He begotten;
1124-And there is none like unto Him.

Was Jesus crucified?
A friend of mine is an ?Ahmedi? they believe that Mirza Ghullam Ahmed was a messenger of God . The constitution of Pakistan states, that to be a Muslim you have to believe that prophet Muhammad is the last messenger of God, so the ?Ahmedis? were declared non-Muslims in around 1977. Their belief is that Jesus and Mary along with their disciples came to the Indian sub continent, the Kashmir?s are their decedents. Mary died and is buried at a place called Muree and the name Muree is the slang for Mary, Jesus is buried near Srinagar. According to their belief God revealed this to Mirza Ghullam Ahmed. They also quote the Quranic verse 4157 to support their argument.

Brother, yes I would certainly like to know about the Dead Sea scroll and I will be thankful to you for the information.

You wrote

(215) Divine Rescue of Jesus
?When the soldiers with Judas drew near to the place where Jesus was, Jesus heard the approach of many people, wherefore in fear he withdrew into the house. And the eleven were sleeping. Then God, seeing the danger of his servant, commanded Gabriel;, Michael;, Rafael;, and Uriel, his ministers, to take Jesus out of the world. The holy angels came and took Jesus out by the window that looks toward the South;. They bare him and placed him in the third heaven in the company of angels blessing God for evermore.?

?But they killed him not, nor crucified him but so it was made to apprear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow. For a surety they killed him not.?

(15 ?Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-?

I will also be thankful if you explain verse 333 for me in the light of the above mentioned verses 4157/158

329-But she pointed to the babe. They said "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
330-He said "I am indeed a servant of Allah He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
331-"And He hath made me Blessed wheresoever I be and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
332-"(He) hath made me kind to my mother and not overbearing or miserable;
333-"So Peace is on me the day I WAS BORN the day THAT I DIE and the Day that I SHALL BE RAISED UP TO LIFE (AGAIN)"!
334-Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary (it is) a statement of truth about which they (vainly) dispute.
if jesus was taken up to the heaven alive,then according to 333 does it mean he will come back again? and then die, and then will be raised up to life on the day of judgement?? please explain.
thank you,
God bless you all.

unknownuser

Peace mate,

I will pause responding to the alleged contradiction so I can respond to your last comment, it is going to be a big one again, i need some time bro to organise my reply, thanks for the new questions I really appreciate it, i have all the answeres while reading you comment, believe me bro, just be patient with me until I put it together

peace be with you