Does the Quran approve the Bible? Vs Does Christians approve the Bible?

Last Update: 26th June 2021

■ New updates, Responding to Answering-islamBlog

■ New updates, Responding to Allah protecting & guarding the Bible.

■ New updates, Proof Bible scribes forgot to add verses to the Bible!

By: Mustafa Sahin

Christian missionaries use several Quranic verses like (Sureh 2:87, 5:46, 3:3, 10:64) and other similar verses, to prove that the Bible can not be corrupted. They misinterpret Verses of the Quran and Hadith to show that the Gospel is truth and a light and guide for humanity where Muslims are even requested to Judge by it. They even claim the Islamic sources speak about Biblical Preservation.

These misinterpreted verses have been refuted here;


But here are some useful points to counter there arguements and expose how this arguement can be used against them.

Point 1: “Muslims don’t claim ” Everything” in the bible is distorted”

No Muslim who understands the Quran or Hadith claim everything within of the Previous Scripture (i.e) verses of both the Old Testament or the New Testament is altered or corrupted. The Muslim & Quranic/Hadith position is like the Christians concerning the Bible. Christians themselves believe there are ” Un-Authentic” narrations or verses  amoung the many ” Truthful Statements” in the Bible. So for example, Christian Apologists like Dr James White and David Wood and many other more prominent Biblical Scholars agree that there are ” Un-Authentic” additions to the Bible. So Both Muslims and Christians attest that the Bible has been contaminated. All though the Quran speaks that there is truth and light and a guidence for Humanity concerning the Bible. The Islamic Sources also testify there are contaminations within the Text, please visit The link bellow to see examples:

Proof: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures

Point 2: ” If the Bible is error free, then why do Christians dismiss certain verses”?

If Christians want to assert that the Quran does not assert the Bible is Contaminated with false information. Then why do Christian Apologist and Scholars them selves attest that there are ” Un-Authentic verses attached to todays New Testament? So it is clear that Christians are not even consistent with there own argument’s. Why then do Christians not accept everything as Canonical inspired and Authentic?

For instance have a look at this:

Christian Apologist “David Wood” says; Every Scholar in the World agree’s the last part of Mark’s Gospel ” Un -Authentic” Proof: Forward to (3 Minute 42 seconds).
Watch: https://youtu.be/Uko0Saf-orQgg

It is now evidently clear that Both Muslims and Christians agree ” Not Everything in the Bible is Authentically Realiable. So if Christians want to accuse Muslims for misinterpreting the Quran for speaking corruption on the Bible, why then do christians attest to fabrications and Alterations in the Bible? Now even if a Christian suggests, that they know exactly where the “changes” are, therefore they can remove corruption, and affirm it as a preserved book, they still have issues because Christians don’t just have interpolated issues, but also “Canonical differences between Christian denominations” that are not agreed upon.

This will be discussed further…..

Point 3:   “The Quran itself is a guide”

More cherry picking inconsistency by Christians. They go to the Quran to tell us that the Quran say’s the Bible is the Guide. And Muslims & Christians are commanded to Judge by the Bible.
However they leave out the part where Allah also says: The Quran it self is a guide, let’s read:

“The month of Ramadhan [is that] in which was revealed the Qur’an,  A GUIDANCE for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion. So whoever sights [the new moon of] the month, let him fast it; and whoever is ill or on a journey – then an equal number of other days. Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship and [wants] for you to complete the period and to glorify Allah for that [to] which He has guided you; and perhaps you will be grateful”. (Quran 2:185)

Notice the Quran all though mentions parts of the bible i.e ( Un-Distrorederd parts) are a guide or a light in other verses of the Quran, it however does the same with the Quran in the verse above. So why do Christians cherry pick by appealing to the Quran, to prove the authenticity of the Bible however leave out the verse in the Quran, that says the Quran is a guide?

In fact the Hadeeth say:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658 Narrated by Abu Huraira Allah’s Messenger (saws) said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e) Jesus (a.s.) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel. So Christians cherry picking is not a good idea. When Both the Quran and Hadith attest that it is also a guidence and that Jesus will judge by the Quran and not the Bible. So why do Christians accept the part that the Bible has guidence but reject the very same verses in the Quran that say the Quran is guidence also.

Now a Christian may claim, why does Jesus in the Islamic version not Judge by the Bible but only the Quran, isn’t that a double standard since Allah claims both the Quran and the injeel bible is light and guidence? No not really, I mean think of it this way, Christians claim both the O.T and N.T are from Yahweh God, yet Christians of today claim they are only to be judged by the New Testament, though Christians still believe the O.T is inspired. So I can’t see why they would then have issues of Jesus of the Islamic version using the Quran instead of the Bible.

Point 4:  ” Judge by the Bible”?

Since Christians appeal to the Quranic verses to prove that, we are commanded to Judge by the Bible. How come Christians do not also full fill this condition and judge by the Previous Scripture. For example does it than include the Bible Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter.
That claims Jesus not Cruicified rather substatuted on the Cross similar to what the Quran claims? http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

Notice Christians reject Certain christian writings and deem them Apocryphal. In fact different Christian religious sects have different amount of books amoung there own sects. So why then do they not judge by everything and instead dictate to Muslims what “is” inspired and what is “not” inspired?

So notice the Christians are guilty of what they accuse Muslims of. If the Christians can “choose” what is part of revelation. Then why are the Muslims condemned in doing the same by filtering out what they believe is the only authentic verses within the Bible ? So according to the Christians,  Muslims are supposed to go look at the Bible for Judgement but not just any Bible. It has to be the Bible that only Christians agree with? What kind of nonsense is that?

So notice the Double standards. They accuse Muslims that they should judge by the previous scripture and accept it, as the Quran commands. Yet Christians themselves do not judge by everything and reject certain bibles and certain passages of the Bible and deem it ” Un-Authentic”, and force Muslims to concede to there particular version of the Bible what they think is Authentic.

So Christians are guilty of the same thing by telling Muslims to listen to there bogus interpretation  of the Quran and to judge by everything of the previous book sent down, yet they them selves don’t listen to the very Quran they interprete by rejecting Bibles of the passed and deeming them Apocryphal or Non-Authentic and trying to pick out the Correct Bible for boths Muslims and  Christians to judge by. Sorry but that is just hypocritical and convenient and no different from accusing the Muslim for claiming not all Bibles or verses of the Bible are accurate. When a Muslim tries to also figure out what verses are accurate he gets ridiculed, Yet the Christian can pick out what he pleases as Authentic. Totally hypocritical.

Some of those Bibles those Christians reject may include;
-Sherperd of Hermes
-Epistle of Barnabas
-Apocryphal Gnostic Apocyplse of Peter

In addition, Christian Scholars tell us more then (30 verses) were deleted from the NIV version bible which are still found in the KJV Bible. They are either completely removed from the page, or moved to the footnote, just as a Historical reference, but it’s inspiration  is disputed since they don’t exist in the earliest ancient manuscripts.

It is then clear that when Muslims or Christians are told to Judge by the Gospel it is only to Judge by the authentic parts and not ALL of it. And Since the Quran does not define the exact truthful amount of books in the previous Scripture such as the 27 Books in the New Tesmament. Then Christians have no right in forcing  Muslims to what there standard of authentic books are. For all i care the many Gnostic could be Authentic as well. And so could the verses Christians dismiss from there bible, and since the Quran does not outline what exactly is the ” Authentic ” Canon” or the Authentic verses, then this is an open field day for all parties for both Muslims and Christians. The Christians claim to have a position of working out “Authenticity”, they try and rely on the Most Earliest ancient manuscripts. We have dealt with this arguement here, that when Christians claim they can fix the errors in the Bible by refering to the earliest material, See:


Also refering to the Earliest is not alwayse a good idea. Because it can still be early and Un-Authentic read ( Galatians 1:4-8) Where Paul admitted there were false books and scribes as early as (50 A.D) and Paul insisted his Desciples to turn away from those scribes. A Christian can try and be clever here by saying Paul didn’t consider those other books to be other bibles, therefore there wasn’t really any other bibles back then. However this is incorrect, when Paul dismissed it, it didn’t mean those other early scribes did not exist or that there documents did not exist as their own version of the Bible, if they didn’t exist then why would Paul say turn away from them? They clearly did exist, and Paul did not want them considered to be a bible because Paul disagreed with them, thus this does not mean other bibles did not exist, they were just false ones according to Paul, thus proving early documents even in Paul’s time can be wrong, so what makes you think if something is written early means it’s correct? It clearly isn’t according to the biblical premise!

The Muslims on the other hand take the approach with what agrees to the Quran or not in contradiction to it, as the safer option. Now a Christian may look at this and frankly assert that is absurd. But then again these are the same Christians who want Muslims to appeal to the Quran for validation of the Bible, interesting Hey?

Point 5: “The Double standards”

Christians tell Muslims that the Quran is corrupted. And that Allah is a different God then the Bible in fact they even say; an evil spirit demon gave the Quran to Prophet Muhammed in a cave. Yet the same Christians say Allah in the Quran, says He gave Christians the Bible as Truth and Guidence and a Light”. Now how can Satan who is Allah give Christians a Bible which is light and guidence? Makes no sense now does it?

If Christians say, no we don’t just say ALL of the Quran was from a Demon, But it also contains plagerization copying the Bible. Well this brings up more difficulties for the Christian. Why? Because if Christians appeal to the Quran, where Allah tells Christians he sent them the Bible? Then how can this be plagerization? Since both the Quran and bible (Truth parts of the Bible) come from the same source that being ( The preserved Tablet in heaven) which is from Allah! Therefore plagerization arguement does not stand, so the Christians have to now submit to the original arguement that all of the Quran is from Satan, and if this is the case, then again how can Satan say in the Quran, the gospel is “truth and a light”? Why would Satan confess this? Satan will only say the Bible is truth and a light, if it’s a False bible, therefore when Christians appeal to the Quran and say it speaks that the Bible is truth and a light, yet claim the Quran is from Satan is a illogical fallacy, thus the best explanation is, that “yes” the Quran is not from Satan, nor copied, and both the Quran and only the truthful parts of the Bible that has survived distortions are the Truth and the light!

Point 6: “The Inconsistency” Muslims to refer to the Quran, that approves the Bible?

Inconsistency to call the Quran not a Realiable Historical Source? The Christians say that the Quran is not a credible historical source of information.


Now that begs the Question? If the Quran is not a reliable source of information why then do Christians refer to the Quran and tell Muslims to also refer to the Quran that “approves” Qur’anic “verification of the Bible? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the Quran is a false book yet at the same time claim it’s a realible source of information for saying the Bible is light and a guidence. If the Quran really is not reliable source since it was transmitted many years later after the Bible, why then do Christians tell Muslims even your Quran approves it? If the Quran is not reliable then that would mean, the verse in the Quran regarding the Bible being truth and a light and guide is also unreliable. See we Muslims do not claim everything written in the Bible is False! where as Christians do of the Quran! they go to the extent of saying the Quran is from a Demon yet use the work of a Demon to approve the Bible. Interesting!

So is the Quran a Historically true and accurate testification of the truth of the Bible. If the answer is “No” then you are asserting the Quran lied about the Bible being a guide and light. If your answer is ” Yes” then you ought to agree the rest of the Quran is true as well. You can’t simply “cherry pick”

A Christian may claim why do Muslims “cherry pick” from the bible, well that’s simple. That’s because “We can” since we don’t claim it’s all distorted, however Christians claim the Quran is demon inspired!

Point 7: ” Did Allah send the Gospel which is the whole New Testament and much of the Bible forgotten according to the Quran”? Also there are Christians who appeal and also misquote Hadith, or Qur’anic verses about “The Protection” of the Injeel or the Bible”?

The Christians show more inconsistecy, when they reference the Quran out of context. They will bring verses how the Quran says we will preserve the Injeel. However this is talking about the “preserved tablet in heaven” (al-lawh al-mahfooz) https://islamqa.info/en/answers/7002/what-is-al-lawh-al-mahfooz

So the original copy of the injeel in heaven “Yes that will remain unchanged” however the copy sent to earth, Allah may have preserved the Bible only during the “ministry of Jesus” Christ while on earth.

“A Christian may argue and say, they don’t believe a Bible or (complete injeel) existed during Jesus ministry”

However this can be easily disproven because as you know todays New Testament are only copies of the words Jesus spoke or his companions. And that originals of the (Injeel) ought to have existed in the 1st Century which we dont have today just fragmented copies, so once Jesus left the earth the Injeel or Gospel full filled its duty making way for the Quran so Allah may have then “lifted up the protection” which may explain why the copies we have are not fully reliable as we can not compare them to originals since we don’t have them. In fact Christian Apologist till today try extremely hard to try and date there manuscripts to the 1st century, and they continue to fail in disappointment, as almost all of their carbon dating comes in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries after Jesus. Now isn’t that interesting! The same Christians who try to dismiss the evidence of a earlier original, are usually the ones trying to assume a earlier date for the manuscripts they have to 1st centuary now is that interesting. And of course therefore biblical scholars who even entertain the idea of the Gospel Q which the claim ought to have existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

We also have Wallace a Christian Scholar of N.T who argues there was a “original bible” that has “disappeared” see:

The fact is there is not a single verse in the Quran or Hadeeth that says the Gospel will be protected or guarderd “forever” in the earthly abode. Rather it was only a temporary guard during Jesus ministry, since it didn’t matter for it to remain preserved as there was the Quran coming it’s way as the last final revelation. 

Another great explanation can be found here:


Islamic sources and Tefsir, explain that Allah may have only “preserved” the important parts of the message, such as the “coming of the Prophet Muhammed”, and the essential message like, Tawheed in the Bible, like the “ones” of God, and things like the 10 commandments.

“Now a Christian may say, that’s just absurd!”

However, I find this interesting because, when ever Muslims point out Interpolation in the Bible, or corruption in the Bible, refering to Biblical veriences, Christians often say, well it “doesn’t matter” if the Bible has “Textural veriences” and they point out, the “errors” in the Bible dont matter, and what matters is that the central message of Christianity is still preserved and the textural veriences of the Bible dont affect that central message. Well then if Christians can make that justification for the preservation of the Bible, then Muslims can equally say; there is no contradiction when Allah says, He will guard the Bible, and this doesn’t mean ALL of the Bible, and rather that He will “only” preserve and guard the central message.

Now here is another Hilarious point, Christians mis-interprete the Quran and keep insisting that Allah promised to guard and protect the earthly Bible,  yet these Christians “believe” Allah is a Devil, and the Quran, was revealed to Muhammed in a Cave by a Demon. So this would mean, the Devil inspired the Quran. So my question is, if Allah is really a Devil, and if the Quran was inspired by a Demon, did now a Demon who authored the Quran promise that He will guard and protect the Bible? Interesting Hey?

As Christian Apologist; “Dr James white” says; Inconsistency is the “sign” of a failed arguement”.

Furthermore: “Christians say, well why did Allah fail to preserve the earthly injeel bible”?

Im sure if Christians lost everything in the O.T Bible they wouldn’t care much and say well we have the New Testament which is the latest information for us to follow, hence i would argue the same for the Quran, as the last and most latest source to follow and it wouldn’t matter if the New Testament hasn’t been preserved. After all even though Christians have the O.T they don’t use it much and say only the New Testament applies to them.

This gets more clear when Allah says in the” (Quran 5:13-14)….. “much of the injeel” (Gospel) has been “forgotten”.

So notice how can Christians Quote the Quran believing the Quran speaks of the preservation of the Original Bible yet leave out the verse where the Quran says much of it has been “forgotten”.

The verse is clear read: 5:13

Sahih International: So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.

As you can read, the jews distorted the book, and so Allah cursed them. And then he made the jews forget a portion. Meaning He took away (parts) of the original book away from them as a punishment by causing them to forgot it.

Continue reading:
Verse 5:14

Sahih International: And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.

Notice again, Allah did this because they brock his covenant.
Notice it says they forgotten a portion of what was reminded that being verses to do with the covenant.
It’s clear, that the Torah and the Injeel was not preserved with them in it’s entirety for they have become cursed for playing with Gods revelation for distorting it.
Ask yourself, why was a portion of the revellation caused to be forgotten? If God was trying to preserve it through their scribes?
And also, why is Allah cursing them till the day of judgment despite as these missionaries claim Allah preserved the previous scripture with them. Are we to suggest Allah preserved a book with the Jews and Christians whom He cursed? So on one hand Allah has cursed them till the day of resurrection while at the same time blessed them with a preserved book? Doesn’t make sense now does it?

Furthermore; the earliest copies of the New Testament from the Original manuscripts come 125 CE to 240 CE. Thats almost 100 years after Jesus. Therefore a lot can be forgotten from what was contained in these Original Bible we don’t have today just copies written later on. The Copies we have of today’s new Testament word for word, chapters and verses can not be compared to an original. Because we dont have originals or a complete original of the New Testament within the 1st century. So everything  came in the (Second century) are only believed thats what the originals may have said. There is very little tangible evidence of this only maybe a few letters of certain passages of the N.T and not everything within the 1st century.  And even the dating of these letters are disputed, and there is no real evidence there dating are 1st centuary documents,  nevertheless the point being, Christians can not even cross reference there second century Manuscripts with  1st centuary ones, because 1st centuary documents are not available, and as Christian Scholar Pro.Bart Ehrmans says, how do we know if the 2nd centuary copies are correct if we don’t have the originals to verify that the copies are correct or inline with the originals, since the earlier we go the more mistakes we find when we try and reconstruct a original:

See here: Re-construct with confidence 98% of the Original? Watch Ehrman Vs Wallace: from (Minute: 1.30.21) Go then again to (minute 1.56.07) onwards, and Bart Ehrman, shows can we trust something 97%? Accurate?

Also Here is a video, demonstrating the problem of not having a “original Bible available” and how Christians are left confused on the text of the Bible on what it really said, due to the veriences. Christians believe that they can correct the Biblical Errors by refering to the Oldest Manuscripts of the New Testament, however this falls flat on its face take a read here:


To further prove that verses have been “forgotten”, as the Quran suggests. The New Testament says it is “WRITTEN” in the Law of Moses Jesus will; “die and rise on the third day”. (Luke 24:44-46)

I request Christians to bring us these explicit words: “Rise after third day” from the Law of Moses, and not half the Prophecy like; “He will die and rise”. Christians can never show this explicit part; ” rise after Three Days” in the Law of Moses. So notice this is evidental Proof they themselves have forgotten to write this explicit statement. All they have is; He will die, and rise, but no mention of “Rise after third day”. It’s no where to be found in the Old Testament, yet Luke claims that exact statement word for word, was written there. However when we look in the Old testament, or and law of Moses, books the statement is not there, this goes to show, either Luke made a false error in assuming it was written like the way, He said it was. Or that, it was there, or was supposed to be in there, but the scribes “forgot to put them in there”. Again for me, it’s not important because as a Muslim I don’t believe in the Christian narrative about Jesus being crucified, however I’m just demonstrating that, scribes have forgotten to put a lot of things in the Bible, and this is just a example of that.

See my video here, where I continue to respond to a Christian; “He asks where is this Injeel”?

Furthermore Christians can not prove the correct “preserved Canon” of the Bible today. They don’t have a unanimous agreement on it between the Protestant, Catholics and Greek Orthodox. If they had an Original they would have all agreed.

Here is a link showing diffrent amount of Books accepted in one denomination compared to another Christian denomination:

So when the Christians say the Quran says its preserved. They need to be able to show which Bible Canon. Simply Qouting the Quran and not being able to proof which Canon is Preserved defies the whole purpose of appealing to the Quran. And even if you claim you have a Preserved Canon Bible  its still subjective as other Christians Denominations differ to what you believe is Preserved Canon agreed Books. A example from unveiling Christianity web site:

73 Catholic Canon Books

63 Protestant Canon Book

Both Can not be Right.

It is thus clear, Allah was correct in saying, much of the injeel (Bible) has been caused to be forgotten (Quran 5:13-14) the Christians though they have parts of the Bible that has truth and light and some guidance for mankind, a lot of it has been slipped away from them.  And of course we have explained already why Allah would allow such a thing so important like that to slip away, well perhaps because of their sins, so Allah partially took guidance away from them, and secondly because the Quran was going to make way, but if this is still difficult for a christian to understand why God would do such things, a Christian would then need to then explain, why would Yahweh also allow the Quran to come which according to Christians allowed the misguidence of so many Muslims away from the Bible and allowed confusion like this? Even if Christians say that wasn’t Yahway who did that, rather it was satan, that still begs the question why would Yahway allow Satan to cause such confusion like that. But then again  the same Christians tell Muslims to refer to the Quran for the truth of the Bible. Interesting! See we can play the same Questioning with Christian Yahway God of the universe.

Point 8: ” Why do Christians filter and dismiss verses, we can play the same”

If Allah in the Quran tells us Muslims to follow ALL the accounts of the Bible why do Christian Scholars filter out what they believed was the Authentic parts of the Bible? And remove what they believe is ” Un-Authentic? If Christians can filter the bible what makes you think Muslims can not? Thus proving that not everything is “Authentic”.

So Yes! Muslims in being consistent can refer to Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) being in the Bible for example, this is not being hypocritical at all since Muslims do not say “everything” is corrupt. But you Christians say ” ALL the Quran was given to Muhammed by Satan in a Cave that being ALL the Quran is corrupt” yet you Christians say this Satans book ( Quran) approves the Bible. So a Currupt evil Book as the Quran is used to affirm the Truth of the Bible? How so?

These Hypocritical christians, tell Muslims your Allah says ” Everything in the Bible is Authentic! yet the Christians tell us there Bible has verses in there that are not Authentic! and in fact removed alot of verses which they felt was not part of what they believe was not closer to the original Bible. Amazing isn’t it?

We can play the same game on the Christians. The Christians have to accept the Gnostic Bibles and Unite on a Biblical Canon! because the Quran said to confirm them ALL. If they don’t accept this. Then how can they expect us to follow there version of the Bible? If they reject bibles and verses within the New Testament and disagree on the Canon of the Bible, then that validates Muslims to do the same! Plain and simple!

I guess no Christian would accept that premise, so why do they expect Muslims or the Quran to accept there version of the the Canon that is according to their own denomination? Interesting that the protestants will then tell Muslims to stay away from the Catholic Canon which differs from the Protestant Canon, but hey Allah apparently told Muslims what the Christians have today is preserved and authentic, yet Christians can’t tell us which one! And it all depends on their subjective opionion depending which Christian denomination they belong too.

Point 9:  “Counter Rebuttal to some of my points”

Rebuttal Section can be found on YouTube in Audio:

1st counter Rebuttal: (Responding to Sam Shamoun of Answering-islam)

2nd Counter Rebuttal (to a random online Christian Apologist)

3rd Counter Rebuttal: (Responding to Sam Shamoun of Answering-islam)

slam Blog).

4th Counter Rebuttal: (Responding to Sam Shamoun of Answering-islam) his article can be found here:


My Response:

As i expected Sam Shamoun didn’t deal with my arguements. All He did was, switch the subject to “The Preservation of the Quran”. The Preservation of the Quran is not the subject here. The Subject is, does the Quran confirm the Bible, and we counter the arguement Christians make that the Quran claims the Bible to be true in its complete form. That is why I have pointed out the flaws of the Bible. Because Christians try and use the Quran to validate the truth of the Bible. So Sam Shamoun trying to  prove that the Quran preservation is false doesn’t validate your bible on the flip side, in fact it makes it much worse for Him, for bringing up Qur’anic Corruption claims because in doing so your, invalidating the Quran. Funny that his attempting to invalidate the Quran, yet trying to use the same Corrupt Quran to approve that the Bible is true. See how silly He just made himself look? If the Quran is Corrupt all of it as you Christians claim, then why would Christians use the Quran as a historical valid document to prove the Bible is correct? In fact Christians say, a Demon authored the Quran, so I ask how can a Demon who wrote the Quran, tell Christians the Gospel is truth and a light? So this desperate Apologist, instead of dealing with all my arguements, He instead tries to throw mud on Islam. News flash for you my arguements are still valid, and Sam has failed to deal with them.

His old arguements have been refuted at the following link:



Point 10: ” Clear evidence of Bible corruption”

Now see for yourself Evidence of the Corruption tampering within the Bible Christian Apologist like Jay Smith admits  and say’s “We Know the Bible has been changed, and We know where those changes have been made:

See video:

See also how we have clearly demonstrated that not only has there been “corruption” of how many books are to be part of the original Biblical  Canon, but even within the New Testament Text, there are clear signs of distorting words, and interpretations, interpolations, and textural veriences, in adding words to the latter gospels and shifting around words, in order to force a theology about Jesus, Salvation, Divinity, crucifixion and so on:

See: https://mustafasahin33.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/proof-how-christology-evolved-in-the-four-gospels/






Point 11: “Today’s New Testement is the same Bible in Muhammad’s time?

Sam Shamoun asks, is todays New Testament the same as the one in Muhammeds time?

Christians hold todays bible and say this is the Bible that is the same one in Muhammeds time.Yet the same Bible they hold they admit has fraudulent verses in there like the last 10 verses of Mark Gospel.

Did those 10 verses of Marks Gospel exist in the Bible in Muhammeds time? The answer is also “Yes”. Since those verses pre-exist Prophet  Muhammed according to the dating of those late Manuscripts.

Therefore even in Muhammeds time, Yes there was a bible. But was it fraudulent free? The answer ought to be No. Unless christians assume the ending of Mark was not there in Muhammeds time. However they can’t do that since again those Manuscript predated Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh) Therefore the Christian fail to prove a point to show, what existed in Prophet Muhammeds time was fraudulent free.When the historical records show otherwise.


I like to ask Sam Shamoun, since the Codex siniticus is a 4th centuary Bible which predates Muhammed. It contains 29 books of the New Testament instead of 27 books. So this would mean in Muhammeds time there was Codex siniticus that had 29 books. So why doesnt todays Protestant canon of 27 books of the New Testament agree with the Bible in Muhammeds time?  According to Sam Shamoun God only inspired 27 books of N.T? So in Muhammeds time they didnt have the preserved right canon. It had forgery even back then of 2 extra books. Ouch!

So No Sam Shamoun even “in” or “before” Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) time, you had verient Bibles that had different amount of Books in a canon, and there was not one canon identically the same that was in agreement to today’s accepted Canon.

Point 12:   ” Allah’s Words Do Not Change”

Christians missionary like Sam Shamoun will say; Surah 6:115 and 18:27 state that no one can change the words of Allah. The Torah and Gospel were the words of Allah. Since they couldn’t have changed that means that Islam testifies to the incorruptibility of the text of the Bible.

Bassam Zawadi already deals with that here: https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_allah_s_words_do_not_change

And So has Dr Shabir Aly also refuted this:

In these articles, we see that Allah does not say the torah and Injeel specifying them can’t change. Rather He said Word. Word doesn’t have to imply previous revelation rather it could mean, His decree as out lined in the sources provided in the links above, also it could also be talking about the preserved tablet in heaven that cannot change, which both the copies of the original injeel and torah come from. So what is on the earth could change such as previous scripture but not the preserved tablet in heaven the master original, of the Quran the last book which Allah said, it will be guarded from corruption.

I would also like to ask Christian Apologists, Like Sam Shamoun if they really believe that Allah’s word can not change in the way they understand it when refering to the Bible, then why does Sam Shamoun in the second part of his response found here: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/01/the-quranic-affirmation-of-the-holy-bible-revisited-pt-2/

Demand that Allah’s word “can change” in Qur’anic manuscripts? It seems Sam Shamoun is not even being consistent with his own arguement. “Face Palm” moment.

Point 13: ” Christians like Sam Shamoun use Surah 61.14 “To Prove that Allah says the Christians will be Victoria’s that includes the Protection of their Bible.

However, being Victoria’s has nothing to do with the preservation of their Bible, see:


Please also visit this video by Ijaz Ahmed who Refutes more Hadith brought up by Christians in reference to Quran confirmation of the Bible:

Some funny back and forth, Christian wrote:

My Response;

If you are in doubt?

Ask the People of the Scripture if you are “found in it”?



Christology & Theology Evolved in the Four Gospels


Last updated: 27th Sep 2021

By: Mustafa Sahin

In these remarkable examples, we demonstrate how the Gospels writers forced Christology and theology into the Bible. See how the later Gospel writers tried to Improve the earlier Gospels to turn Jesus into divine God. There are also examples of improvements made on the Salvation, and Crucifixion narrative, which is the central tenants of the Faith.

These are the believed first dates of the Gospels:

■ Gospel of Mark. 65-70 A.D

Christian Scholars believe Mark wrote first.

■ Gospel of Mathew & Luke 71- 89 A.D

Then they believe Mathew and Luke sit somewhere in between.

■ Gospel of John: 90-100 A.D

Followed by John being the last of the four Gospels

Let’s begin:

1 – What do the 4 Gospels say about Jesus being killed on the Cross by the Spear.

Mark:  No Mention

Luke:   No Mention

Math:  No Mention

John:     19:34 (Yes)

Note: You can’t simply die from being Crucified for few hours on a Cross. The last Gospel wanted to ensure that Jesus was confidently killed. So that no one suspects,  Jesus survived a Crucifixion, because Christians wanting to make salvation part of the central doctrine.

2 –  Jesus called: “Rabbi” (Improved ) to being called “Lord”.

Mark: 9:5: Jesus called Rabbi

(Same story)

Mathew 17:4 Jesus called Lord

Note: Christians will often say, one reason why Jesus is God, is because His known as being “Lord”. So we can see Mathew enforcing the term Lord instead of Rabbi.

3 – Jesus from being named Master improved (elevated) to being called (Lord) will come.

Mark 13:35 master will come.

(Same Storey)

Mathew 24:32 Lord will come

4 – Jesus called Messiah improved (Elevated) to Son

Mark: 8:29 Jesus called Messiah

(Same story)

Math: 16:16 Jesus called: Son of living God

Note: All through Jesus is called Son of God in other passages in Marks Gospel, Mathew does not like to use (Messiah) narrating the same Story from Mark 8v29.

5 – Everyone God improved to My Father?

Mark 3:31 Whoever does the will of God

(Same Story)

Mathew 12:46 does the will of my Father

Note: Mathew seems to, want to make the father more personal for Jesus. Whoever does the will of God, seems to isolate Jesus. And it seems Mathew didn’t like that.

6 – Teacher improved to Lord

Mark 4:38 Jesus called Teacher

(Same story)

Mathew 8:25 Jesus called Lord

Note: Why is the Gospel writer in Mathews so bothered with the term “teacher’, was Jesus not a man and not just God according to the Trinitarians? If Jesus was human, why not leave it as a teacher, why force the term Lord into the text? this indicates, that the scribe is pushing a Jesus as being Godly agenda, and is not satisfied that Jesus human attribute as a Teacher is mentioned. Now a Christian may say, a teacher can also, be defined as an attribute of God. Though, then I would ask, then why did not Mathew leave the term Teacher, if it was the same as calling someone Lord?

7 – Jesus taught the Greatest commandment is to say God is One Lord.

Mark 12:29 Greatest to say” our Lord God is ONE

(Same Story)

Mathew 22:37-38 Jesus taught to love God.

Note: The “ONES” of God replaced Loving God. Today many Christians especially Trinitarians don’t like to talk about God as being One, but rather Taurine. And they talk about God as being love. Well, this is due to Mathew, who was manipulating the message, by trying to slowly remove the notion that it was great to say God is “One”. Let’s rather just talk about how God is about love here. Interesting hey?

8 – Jesus said: “Why do you call me Good?

Mark 10:18 Jesus say’s  “why call Me Good”?

(Same Story)

Mathew 19:17  Why call Me Good (Removed) from New International Version)

Note: This is proof Later Scribes tried removing the imperfections of Jesus. They wanted Jesus to look more perfect and thus more devine. Though, the King James Bible still has it written as; Why call me good” the New International Version, has removed, Why call me Good, and instead reads, “what is good”, because Bible scholars say the NIV uses earlier dated manuscripts. This proves Scribes can not be trusted as they are constantly trying to add or remove things they don’t feel comfortable with. And at times, get caught out.

9 – Improvements to cover up the Human limitations of Jesus. Why couldn’t Jesus Find figs on the Tree?

Marks 11:12-14: Because it wasn’t the season for figs.

(Same story)

Mathew 21:18: it wasn’t the season for figs (removed)

Yet again, the scribe who wrote Mathews Gospel seems to get annoyed that Jesus shows human attributes of limitations in Marks Gospel, so He removes the part of the verse, where it displays Jesus having ignorance, on why figs are not growing. It seems the scribe for Mathew, is slowly trying to render out the limited human attributes of Jesus. Interesting though that the Christians want to promote that Gods nature has two natures, one being divine, the other being human, yet the scribe is trying to remove out the poor human qualities out of His God. interesting?

10 –  “Trinity”, verse.

Mark: No mention

Luke: No mention

Mathew: 28:19: Trinity Vaguely Mentioned.

John: 1:5-7: Trinity. Mentioned.

Note: So the wording of (John 1 John 5:7) has been changed in the (New International Version) from Spirit and Son, found in the KJV Version. It’s been changed back to; Water and Blood. This further illustrates, a scribe was playing with the ancient manuscripts and changing the words. This is one of the clearest points, that Christian scribes were forcing Christology into the Text. The earliest ancient manuscripts do not have the 1 John 5:7 passage, it was added later. See here even a Christian Scholar admitting that the “Trinity verse” was a later addition not found in the earliest source Material. See video:

11 – Jesus word (begotten) Son

Mark: No mention

Mathew: No Mention

Luke: No Mention

John: Yes. John 3:16

Note: Biblical Scholars say the term begotten in (John 3:16) is an “Interpolation”.

The word “begotten” has been removed from some of the Gospels by the same bible scholars as fabrication after they realized that this word does not exist in the most ancient manuscript. So notice how a Scribe was trying to add words in the Manuscripts to try and make it look as though Jesus had a special unique connection to God. See the NIV, NLT, ESV Biblical Versions for John 3:16. Word Beggoten Removed.

12 – When was Jesus declared Son of God.

Mark: Baptism or Birth

Mathew: Baptism or Birth

Luke: Baptism or Birth

John: From the Time Universe was Created(John 1:14)

Note: The Gospel of John is not satisfied Jesus is declared Son of God on earth. So it starts to exaggerate and claim Jesus was always Gods Son, and both God and Son had a Unique relationship even before Jesus was born on Earth. Even so that their heavenly relationship was there even before God made the Universe.

13 – Jesus Miracles powers improved

Mark 8:22-24, Jesus takes some time to heal ONE man’s Eye, he had to spit.

(Similar event)

Mathew 20:30-34 (No spitting required)

Note: Jesus heals the Eye of TWO people with one touch immediately. No spitting is required. Seems Mathew was trying to enforce more power on Jesus.

14 – Willing for Cruicifiction improved

Lukes 22:42: Jesus prays to father to Remove cup (i.e) Crucifixion.

(Same events)

John 6:38 Jesus confidentially comes out to do the will of Father.

15 – Who witnessed Ressurection Story.

Marks Gospel (No mention) in Earliest Manuscripts. 9-20 Emitted.

Mathew: Yes

Luke: Yes

John: Yes

16 – When was All Authority given to Jesus.
Mark: No mention
Mathew 28:18: Yes.

17 – Was Jesus Sinless?

Mark: No Mention

Luke: No Mention

Mathew: No mention

John:   1 JOHN 3-5: Yes.

18 – Jesus: forgiving Sin like God, improved.

Mark:  Story missing

Luke: Story missing

Mathew:15:4 Jesus affirms the death penalty.

John: 8-11 Jesus removes Death Penalty.
Forgives Sins.

19 – Jesus called (God) explicitly.

Mark: No Mention

Luke: No Mention

Mathew: 1:23 Yes mentioned

John: 20:28 Yes Mentioned.

20 – Disciples are told to Prayer in Jesus name.

Mark: No Mention.

Luke: none.

Mathew: vague

John: 16:27-28 Yes.

21 – Jesus is the only way through to the Father.

Mark: no mention

Luke: no mention

Mathew: no mention

John: Yes 14:6

22 – Jesus improved in Knowledge.

Mark:  (13:32) Jesus as SON, not all-Knowing.

Mathew:(24:35-36) Jesus is not all-knowing.

Luke:(2:52) Improvements made.

John: 21:17 Jesus is ALL-knowing

23 – Improvement in Salvation:

Matthew 19:17 ” keeping (commandments) gave you salvation.

John 6:40 ” Believing in SON gives you everlasting salvation.

Note: you can see the shift of what was most important for salvation was to keep Yahway commandments that shifted to Accept Jesus as the SON. Clear Sonship theology being forced in.

24 – Jesus improvements made having control over his own Life and Death.

Luke: 22:42″ Jesus requests his father to remove ” Death” i.e the Cup”. In other words, Jesus shows he has no control over his own life and death.

John: 10:17″ Jesus has suddenly got control over his own life and death and has powers to lay down his own life.

25 – Jesus being preached as having Eternal pre: Existence.

Mark: No pre-Existence mentioned

Luke: No pre-existence mentioned

Mathew: No pre-existence mentioned

John: Yes Did have pre-existence. John 1:1 and Before Abraham was ” I AM.

Note: New Testament Scholar of the Bible, Bart Erhman tells us about it here;

26 – Jesus said put down your Swords. Whoever lives by Sword dies by the Sword. (Improvements made to show Jesus was peaceful)

Mark: no mention

Mathew: (Yes) Mathew 26:52

Note: Let’s compare Marks account with Mathew. Marks version of the events omits the verse about putting down the swords, instead rebukes the Romans in (Mark 14:48) Let’s take a close look;

Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. (Mark 14:47)

“Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? (Mark 14:48)

Now let’s look at Mathew:

With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Matthew 26:51

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 26:52

So as you can see, unlike Marks Gospel, Mathews Gospels try to portray Jesus being more peaceful. Mathews adds the verses put down swords, and yet the earliest gospel Marks mentions nothing as such. This demonstrates Mathew gospel was trying to improve Jesus status to show He was more peaceful rather than an aggressor.

To conclude:

Christian missionaries claim that the earliest Bibles still prove Jesus divinity for example in Mark 2-1-12 Jesus had the power to forgive sin.
However, what we read in Mathew 6:14, the Disciples of Jesus also had the power to forgive other peoples Sins. Therefore teaching that forgiving Sin doesn’t prove your God. In addition. We are not suggesting that there may not be signs of slight divinity towards Jesus in the Earliest Gospel. What we are showing is the Snow Ball effect that most of the verses on strong divinity come later in the Gospels than to the ones Prior. Proving that Theology was being improved over time.

Go to any Christian missionary ask him for evidence from the 4 Gospels to prove that Jesus is God. Watch how 95% of the time he will Quote from the last Gospel of John.

Here is another  example:

A Christian references verses to Prove that Jesus is God. He uses:

12 verses from the Gospel of John.

1 verse  from the Gospel of Mathew

0 verses  from the Gospel of Luke & Mark

Source: http://bugman123.com/Bible/JesusIsGod.html

Another example: Christians use the latter parts of the four Gospels. Matt Slick a Christian Apologist does not even Quote the Gospel of Mark or even the Gospel of Luke to prove Jesus is divine in this particular article. He uses (Mathew) and (John) see;

Matt Slick uses:

8 verses from the Gospel of john

5 verses from the Gospel of Mathew

0 verses from  Gospel of Luke & Mark

Here is yet another, Christian Apologist named Simon Turpin from AnsweringGenises puts up his Top 10 “Proof for Jesus being God” though it was a bit difficult to count here is the approximate lists:

22 verses from the Gospel of John.

8 verses from the Gospel of Mathew

1 verse from Gospel of Luke

2 verses from the Gospel of Mark


So as you can witness yourself, the trend is pretty much the same, very rarely will they Quote from Gospel of luke, and extremely rarely from Marks Gospel. Is this not enough evidence to prove the point of a Christology being evolved? The interesting thing is, a Christian will only prove Jesus is God from the Gospel of Mark with multiple verses, only when you really “press him” otherwise it’s the last resort a Christian will go to, to prove Jesus is God in the earlier gospels, this in itself proves yet again our point, that there are no real convincing verses in earlier gospels especially the Gospel according to Mark if there can assure you Christians would be referring to them as the first resort, not the last resort, and in big frequent numbers as we see for the Gospel of John and Mathew.

Even Bible Scholar Professor Bart Ehrman agrees with this that Jesus early disciples didn’t think He was God. Rather this evolved later on. Watch at:
From (3minutes) https://youtu.be/Yte-ad6Y31s

Fact: according to Christian Theology of testing Authenticity. Closer to the Source more Authentic. Later is least Authentic.
That is why Christians often make the arguement why should anyone accept the Quran since it came 600 years later? And Christians say, the way Christians prove accuracy is by referring to the earliest writings, yet Christians by that standard should only accept Marks Gospel, but they don’t, they accept later writings.

If doubting our article, try this experiment when talking with Christians. Ask them to give you the “TOP 10 Bible verses to proves that Jesus is God”. When you see that not a single reference is made from Marks Gospel, then you shall come to know the truth of our arguement, no real test it for yourself.

Just to give you more evidence of how Scribes deliberately (remove words) change the text to “hide” verses where it proves Jesus is not God, take an example at this.

The Bible tells us, that Jesus as the Son (the second Godhead of the trinity), has “NO” knowledge when the “Hour” is, let’s read:

New International Version
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mathew 24:36)

As you can see the NIV says: nor the son.

However when we read the King James Version & New King James Version:

King James Bible
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Mathew 24:36)

New King James Version
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

Nor the Son, has been “Removed” from the passage, why?

TodayBiblical Scholars tell us, the (New International Version) bible, is more accurate because it uses much earlier ancient manuscripts, compared to the Manuscripts used for the King James Version.

So what we can now see is that this trend of manipulating the Bible, changing words, and removing words, to force a theology was like a part of the culture among scribes. One needs to now ask the question if this much dishonesty was present in later manuscripts, imagine how much dishonesty there were in earlier scribes? Now a Christian may say, well at least we are honest to change it back to (nor the son). I would say, well thank you, but what about now changing all the other areas where forced theology has also been inputted. Of course, they won’t be honest to admit those. Also, this shows no matter how honest today’s Christians want to claim they are, scribes in the past have tarnished a reputation. One can only now imagine, if scribes can act dishonest, then we can never be sure every single one of them also acted honestly. Frankly, the Bible can not be 100% trusted, that every single verse, is exactly intact the way it was revealed in the original. And since we only have copied of the copies and not the originals, this only begs the question, how much more differences we would find, if we had all those century originals to compare them with.

And because God made it clear to them that Jesus as the Son, was not God by showing us his ignorance of the hour, they tried removing the verse from the text. Now talk about, how dishonest one can be! Of course, only now they have added it back to the Bible in the NIV, because they got caught red-handed when, ancient manuscripts were studied, and it was found out that the earliest manuscripts did include the “nor the son part” Well thank you for being honest after getting caught red-handed!

This further illustrates, the Biblical scribes were forcing a dogmatic approach to make Jesus look more than a God, in a slow evolutionary process, notice they couldn’t do it right away, because it would be way too obvious so they spent years, trying to Corrupt the text.

Please also visit a related article, where we show more examples of Christians playing forced interpretation to the Biblical text to force a theological agenda: https://mustafasahin33.wordpress.com/2020/04/30/figurtive-literal-games-in-the-bible/

Of course, Christians don’t just tamper with Christology narratives about Jesus but also other theological teachings see this for example:

Bart Ehrman writes that there were “Theological changes even in the Gospel of Luke:

He writes;

I can now wrap up my discussion of the textual problem of Luke 22:19-20 and the intriguing question of what Jesus said at his Last Supper (according to Luke).  I have argued so far that the longer (more familiar) form of the text, found in most surviving manuscripts, is a change made by scribes, not what Luke originally wrote (this is where Jesus indicates that the bread is his body given for others and that the cup is the new covenant in his blood shed for others).


Luke’s Last Supper and Orthodox Corruptions of Scripture

Christians often tell Muslims, that they no longer need to follow the laws of the Old Testament, and Jesus brought a new covenant. And yet this is based on a Textural variant, not in the Original.

We can show even more theological corrections;

Here is another interesting read, Jesus says in the bible whoever gives up things for his sake will receive 100 folds in the next life. That includes a wife. So if your wife is treacherous and an unbeliever and you give her up, then Jesus will reward you 100 times over. Jesus will give you 100 times as many wives in the Christian paradise. But it seems as the Bible was written from Mark to John the term wife was introduced and removed.

The first Earliest gospel has no word “or wife”.

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, no man hath left the house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s <Mark 10:29,30

Now Mathew and Luke finally introduce “or Wife”.

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home OR WIFE or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God
<span;>Luke 18:29

<span;>And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother OR WIFE or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. Mathew 19:29

Interesting John finally corrects both Mathew and Luke, and removes “OR WIFE” and any other specific term Christians will be rewarded with.

Already the reaper draws his wages and gathers a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together. John 4:36

So in conclusion, we see Christian scribes forcefully correcting the Bible as the Bible progresses, from Mark to John.


Now for Rebuttal section =

A Christian Apologist, who goes by the name of, Nakdimon Yesman, is one of the Authors at the Answering-Islam Website. Joined me in a text, debate on the subject, so I’ll share the exchange here, where He has tried to attempt to prove that the Gospel of Mark does in fact according to him prove Jesus is God. So let’s begin;

■ Christian Writes:

(Mark. 2:7) “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?”

Jesus here is God because only God can forgive sin.

Muslim Response:

Read this short article answers everything, that needs to be answered on Jesus forgiving sin? http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/if-jesus-isnt-god-how-did-he-forgive-sins

■ Christian writes:

The gospel of Mark starts with this:
The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God to be as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”c —

3“a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’ ”d

4And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.6John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7And this was his message: “After I come the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

We see here that according to Mark John the Baptist us prophesied by the prophets, Isaiah and Malachi. When we turn to those prophecies we see that this forerunner is to clear the way for YHWH and go before YHWH to announce him. Yet Mark points to JESUS as the one John the Baptist is sent before and to whose coming to proclaim. And so does John. In both Mark and John’s Gospel John the Baptist points to JESUS as the One he is sent before. So follow me:

1. Malachi and Isaiah prophesied about someone who would go before the God of Israel and proclaim his appearance
2. Mark, John the Apostle and John the Baptist identify JESUS as the one John the Baptist was sent before and announce
3. According to Mark and John JESUS is the God before whom John the Baptist was sent according to the prophets.

So there is no “evolution” of the identity of Jesus Christ from the Gospel of Mark to the Gospel of John. It’s simply gross ignorance of Biblical Christology that leads people to conclude this so-called evolution.

There you have it. Now I don’t expect you to keep your word and concert today, because your prophet also admitted to breaking his oaths when he saw fit. But I have provided you with the evidence and I do expect you to show your untrustworthy character.

Muslim Response:

Of course, when the Christian fails on his first point about power to forgive sins, the next attempt for a Christian is to get again misinterpret another passage of the Gospel of Mark and to try and make Jesus look more than He is, so the first assertion is that John the Baptist was proclaiming someone more powerful then him to come, so the Christian Apologist thinks that if someone is greater then John, He must be God and that this God, was Prophesied in Isaiah and therefore it is Jesus.

The verses they use:

Mark 1:7
And he began to proclaim: “After me will come One more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

Mark 1:8
I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit

There are several problems here if John the Baptist says, his more powerful, all it could mean is that Jesus unlike John the Baptize is a Prophet, and we know that John is not the Prophet, so that can explain why John believed Jesus was greater then He was and it had nothing to do with Jesus being God.

If Jesus can Baptize with the Holy Spirit, unlike John who can only baptize with water, does it mean Jesus is God? Of course not. First of all, at no point does Jesus baptize anyone or is it said he’s done a baptism “by the spirit” or Holy Spirit. Therefore there seems to be a contradiction or an error, in Marks Gospel.

Secondly, here Jesus shows, that Baptizing people with the holy spirit, Disciples can do that as well.

Let’s read: (Mathew 28:19) Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, “baptizing them” in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So here we see,  though Jesus himself did not perform baptizing using the Holy spirit he rather showed anyone can “Baptize” people with the holy spirit. The Disciples also had the power, to baptize them (other people).

Therefore baptizing using the Holy Spirit was not something that only Jesus could do.

Also if Jesus was connected to Isiah (making way for the Lord) And Jesus because he went in front of Isreal as the forerunner for God. Jesus is therefore God? There are the ambiguous things Christians rely upon. They can’t show anything clearly. Its clear Jesus is Gods representative on earth. Doing the fathers Works. Nothing about Jesus being God himself. Jesus said I do not my own will but do as the father tells me, in other verses, He dies nothing of himself (John 5:30). The Bible also says:

“Men of Israel, listen to me! Jesus the Nazorean was a man whom God sent to you with miracles, wonders, and signs as his credentials. These God worked through him in your midst, as you well know.” [ Acts 2:22 ]

So people going to see Jesus as (Lord) as Gods representative means nothing. Because Jesus wasn’t the same as God the Lord, rather the Lord God was working through Jesus, as ACTS 2:22, clearly shows.

And even if for arguement sake, Jesus was doing more powerful works, like baptizing with Holy Spirit as opposed to just water, all this could mean they’re seeing “Gods works” done through Jesus. Just like Moses was made like a “God” sent to Pharoah in (Exodus 7:1)Therefore you need to be consistent when Moses was sent to Pharoah was Moses God? no of course not. Rather Moses Represented God. Similar account for Jesus. And the Bible teachers even through Paul, Jesus never claimed Equality with God.

■ Christian writes:

You haven’t the slightest clue how to properly exegete the text of scripture.

Exodus 7:1 doesn’t say Moses is God, because the rest of the text demonstrates he isn’t. God simply announces Moses to be supreme over Pharaoh as God’s representative. As you know, the word “Elohim” does not have to mean God or refer to the True God. However, the prophecies in Malachi and Isaiah are very clear and have nothing to do with mere representation: They announce an appearance of YHWH himself and announce that Jesus IS that appearance of YHWH. The law of agency does NOT work with appearances, as I explain on my website, which you claim to have read. And it is hilarious to see Muslims run to Paul to try to undermine the Divinity of Jesus, while when it suits them, they will turn around and accuse Paul of being the source of the supposed fallacious teaching of the Divinity of Jesus, which is why they reject him as a true Apostle in the first place. Did Paul teach the Divinity of Jesus or didn’t he?

But to address your Philippians 2 claim, that text proves what you so desperately try to deny. The text does NOT say that Jesus didn’t claim equality with God, it says Jesus didn’t grasp onto his equality with God: the whole point of that portion is that Jesus, because of his equality with God, since the text says he existed as God, he didn’t insist on his divine privileges but humbled himself and took upon himself the form of a slave. And with that example, Paul exhorts us to take on the same mentality of humility, not to grasp onto and insist on our privileges, but to humble ourselves to favour others.

You Muslims are hilarious! The very reason you reject the gospels and claim their corruption, ALL OF THEM, is that they teach Jesus’ Divinity. But when it’s convenient you want to pretend the Gospels don’t teach the Divinity of Jesus and claim a supposed “evolution” that simply isn’t there. Too bad, Mustafa, no dice. As you are not dealing with a rookie. You will have to do much better than this.

Muslim Response:

In (Exodus 7:1) How is Moses supreme over Pharoah. By representing himself to be like God. That’s the point. It is interesting how he says Elohim doesn’t have to mean it’s God. But look at the inconsistency. If it were Jesus in Exodus 7:1 instead of Moses. I bet you would have interpreted it to be the meaning no other than God. And this is the Christian games, like the term Theos. When Theos in John 10:35 is used for Jews Theos (God) this doesn’t mean there is God. Rather Godly people. But when the same term Theos is given to Jesus in Hebrews 1:7-8 it suddenly becomes literal God. See the double standards?

It gets more interesting. Christians tell us Human beings are created in Gods image. Therefore the Jews in John 10:35 appeared as God are called Gods (Theos) see Nakdimon will interpret this as Metaphorical. But when Jesus appears as Gods image and is Called God. It suddenly becomes literal and not Metaphorical.
See more Double standards. The Bible teaches our bodies are Gods temple (1 Corinthians 6:19) Therefore it was Jesus body the temple that appeared as God in Marks Gospel. Not Jesus himself. Otherwise, we are All appearing literally as God as well as the walking talking temple of God. Will Nakdimon claim we Human beings are also God for appearing as the temple of God. I don’t think so. So it is then clear for Christians to make things up as they go through forced inconsistent interpretations.

Then Nakdimon says, we know from the context that Moses is not the True God”.

However, we can do the same if we look at the context of Jesus you claimed Jesus was equal to father? Yet the Bible tells us, Jesus said the Father was Greater than him. So your interpretation again for Phillipians does not work. Therefore the context of looking at other verses can disprove Jesus being God. Nakdimon then speaks about How Jesus human nature wanted to be humbled therefore showed a lower class at times but look how this again is inconsistent for example:

Our Christian friends claim Jesus is half-human therefore his human nature showed weakness. However, the Christians have no escape. Because the very same Christians use the Human nature of Jesus to prove his also God because Jesus human nature was too perfect to commit sins. That’s why a Christian will say Jesus is God because only God can not sin.

As you know our human nature is tested in committing Sins. Jesus human nature was too perfect to sin.
Therefore Christians use the Human nature of Jesus to prove diety when it suits them. But when Muslims show human nature proves him not God in other aspects the Christians then try to avoid it by saying oh..but that’s human nature. Yet at the same time, they try and prove even Human nature to be God through Him being sinless. All of the Gospels do not teach the divinity of Jesus at best they are mere misinterpretations. See for example Appearing as a God in John 10:35 for Jews does not mean they the Jews are God. Moses appearing like a God to Pharoah doesn’t mean his God. We Human beings appearing as the temple of God doesn’t mean we are God so why should it mean it is God when Jesus appeared as one? Nakdemon has no answer to this inconsistency.

He then asserts that Muslims, believe ALL of the Gospels are corrupted because they teach Jesus to be divine. But then Muslims claim there was an Evolution of Divinity within the same book.

You distorted the Muslim position. For one, we Muslims do not claim EVERYTHING is Corrupted. Rather there are passages within the Text that can not be trusted. Even Christian Apologist David Wood and Dr James white Believe as Muslims do for example the last 12 verses of Marks Gospel both James white & David Wood admit it Un-Authentic. I believe that at best most of the Things that point towards Jesus divinity are either 1) a Misinterpretation or 2) Interpolation ( I john 5:7) or a Narrative being Injected not part of the original message.

As Christians claim closer to Source more Authentic. Further away least Authentic. So by that notion, it’s astonishing to see Most of the Proof Christians use for the Divinity of Jesus comes in later Gospels. Hence Least Authentic by their Standards.

■ Christian writes:

It is of no consequence how many times Matthew, Mark, Luke and John testify of Jesus’ divinity. What is important is that they ALL testify of his divinity. And if they do (as they do!) then there can be no case of evolution. All you are doing is simply presupposing that every reference to any topic should have an equal amount of representation in every source. That is simply fallacious! You don’t treat the Quran that way. Even in the Quran, where you have only one author, you have the same event in different chapters being described differently with different details. Yet you don’t insist that they are told the same way, do you? Nope! but then again, that’s Islamic consistency for ya

Muslim Response:

If only the Book of Mark had proof on divinity but sadly you failed to provide sufficient evidence in your attempts which were debunked. It is equally interesting you state there are no consequences how many times each book mentions a proposed divinity for Jesus we say “oh yes it does”.

Even New Testament Bart Ehrman Acknowledges it does for why he has even written and entitled a book called” How Jesus became a God”.

Notice The New Testament Doctor even admits The Earliest sources of the New Testament do not in any way present Jesus as Deity rather it’s an Evolution that crept into later versions of the New Testament.

See: https://youtu.be/6JU9J0XVlzQ

So you can deny as much as you like about it having no consequences. If it had no consequence you wouldn’t be trying to break your back trying to find evidence or say convincing evidence from earlier Gospels for the divinity of Jesus. Not only is there an Evolution of Divinity there is also evidence of Improvements and Exaggerations about Jesus divinity and status as posted in the above references of our article, you can even read more of them here:


As for the Quran having different chapters with the same author. Notice it is the SAME Author. Not different Authors as it is for the Gospel writers. Therefore we are getting a contradiction of Improvements made in the story. Whereas the Quran has one Author which makes sense if he gives more clarification this bears no issue since the storyline comes from one single author. Whereas the new Testament comes from many independent Authors, therefore if their stories don’t add up when someone is lying or attributing fabrications. If ALL four Authors are not narrating the same story or same theology then that begs the question of the story is fraudulent. Even in today’s Police investigation systems, this is how they judge witness testimony to see if the story adds up. If one has a variant story or a story that does not equally clarify the identity then it gets dismissed. That’s how we look at the Gospels from the same investigative method to determine “truth”.

So there you have it, folks, the Christians fail to provide evidence of Jesus deityship in the Earliest of the four gospels, which again is a testification to the truth of my article showing you clearly how, the deityship of Christ was a later invention, and like I said earlier in my article, if Christians believed Marks Gospel present’s a good case for Jesus divinity, then Christians would use them as there strong recommendations, yet I showed you above earlier in the article, Christian Apologists like Matt Slick though, He also believes there are several verses in (Marks) Gospel of Jesus divinity of Jesus being God, yet in this part of the article:


Here we can see Matt Slick fails to include Marks Gospel, He doesn’t even reference them from Marks Gospel but rather uses verses out from (Mathew) or (John) gospels, which in itself proves my point, that Christians themselves deep down understand that appealing to (Marks Gospel) don’t have very strong verses to prove the deityship of Christ. So instead they “market” other verses people that Jesus is God. That in itself proves my point, that there are no special verses or verses that can convince anyone for sure that Jesus is God.


Now to other “Rebuttals:

■ There are Christians who then attempt to use even other verses of Marks Gospel to force the interpretation that Jesus is God, see for example Mark 2:28 “Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Muslim Response:

They claim, that because Marks Gospel says, Jesus is Lord of Sabbath, does this mean His God? See answers; https://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/lord_of_sabbath.htm

■ Christians use “Jesus performing Miracles” for the Proof He is God in Marks Gospel.

Jesus Walks on the Water, in Marks Gospel, and Jesus heals the Blind, therefore His God. (Mark 6:45-52) also, Jesus Heals the Blind (Mark 8:22-10:52)

Muslim Response:

This is not a measure to prove that Jesus is God. Because Jesus said in the Bible, I can of myself do nothing. (John 5:30)
Jesus Here is teaching that, whatever He does, is from the Power of God, who’s given him those powers to perform those miracles.
The Bible also tells us, many other human figures were able to perform “miracles”

See for example:

Exodus 7:10-12 KJV – 10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. 11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. 12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.

Here we see God working through Prophets to perform miracles. Therefore Jesus performing Miracles Is nothing unique or Special. Even in our modern world, Christians tell us they have faith healers, and they claim to perform miracles.

We even read that, Jesus own Disciples could do miracles;

“And he called his twelve disciples together and began sending them out two by two, giving them authority to cast out evil spirits. He told them to take nothing for their journey except a walking stick—no food, no traveller’s bag, no money. He allowed them to wear sandals but not to take a change of clothes. Wherever you go,” he said, ‘stay in the same house until you leave town. But if any place refuses to welcome you or listen to you, shake its dust from your feet as you leave to show that you have abandoned those people to their fate.’ So the disciples went out, telling everyone they met to repent of their sins and turn to God. And they cast out many demons and healed many sick people, anointing them with olive oil.” Mark 6:7-13

Here Christ grants his disciples the authority to perform miraculous healings and exorcisms. So will Christians now accept that the Disciples are also God? Now a Christian may say, well Jesus gave the authority to Disciples to do those things. However that then begs the question, because all though Jesus has given authority to Disciples, Jesus also has taken authority himself from the father: (Mathew 28:18)

So why is Jesus any different? Both the Disciples and Jesus took authority from something bigger than themselves. Disciples took authority from Jesus, and Jesus takes authority from the father. Therefore then Jesus equally is not God for the same reason the Disciples are not God, for the standard of being “given authority to do those miracles”

Furthermore,  in this verse below from the Bible, we see that “Even” false Prophets can perform great miracles:

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect”. (Mathew 24:24)

So this proves to have the ability to perform miracles, which don’t mean you are a divine God. Even false Prophets can perform them.

■ Christians then use these passages from Mark to again from that there was a Divinity of Jesus in the earliest Gospel:

In his trial before the Sanhedrin Jesus is once again charged with blasphemy because of his response to the high priest’s question: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mark 14:61) Jesus responded, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). Then the high priest tore his clothes, charged Jesus with blasphemy, and condemned him to death (Mark 14:64). Why did the high priest respond that way? Because Jesus quoted from Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13–14 and applied the words to himself. In Daniel 7 the divine Son of Man comes before the Ancient of Days, and all peoples and nations serve20 him. The Pharisees recognize Jesus’ divine claim here and charge him with blasphemy, intending to put him to death.

Muslim Response:

The claim here is that Jesus was charged with Blasphemy because all, He says in those verses, is the “Son” of the blessed” And He said, the son of man sits at the right hand. Notice Jesus if God, He should have said, I am the Son God. And I sit on the main throne rather He said; His son of God and Son of Man. And his sitting beside the father and does not sit as the father, thus a clear distinction. And being Son of God does not mean you are God himself, because the Bible tells us, there are many Sons of God.

See my article response to Matt Slick; Servant of God or Son of God?https://m.facebook.com/groups/295144897630904?view=permalink&id=870886546723400

As for the claim, that they put him to death because of Blasphemy? Because He was claiming divinity, this is just a false interpretation, as though people only killed people for claiming they are God, or the son of God, in the Bible Jesus tells us, that people used to get killed for even claiming they are “Prophets” read; Mathew 23:30-33

30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

So notice, the same Pharisees that wanted Jesus killed, Jesus shows us in the above verse they also killed “Prophets”, thus even claiming your a prophet can get you killed, and Jesus did was known as the Prophet, see;

John 6:14 KJV – 14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that (prophet) that should come into the world.

So one could imagine there killing him because, He was known also as a prophet, and we know what happened when people claim they are prophets, they get killed for being depicted as false Prophets, who are also known as sons of God.

Also consider, that we shouldn’t be accepting the Testimony of Jesus “enemies” as they can make a false charge against anyone. They were always an enemy to Christ, so even if they claimed Jesus was going around claiming He was God, doesn’t make it true. Jesus called the Pharisees Hypocrites, Sneaks and Vipers.

The Bible teaches that Sonship is not even unique for Jesus. Anyone who overcomes the trials of this life shall be Gods Sons.

“He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son”. (Revelation 21:7)where the bible teaches anyone can become God’s son.

■ Christians also use this verse to prove Divinity:

“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in HIS Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38

Muslim Response:

Christians try to make Jesus out to be the same as the father, as they claim they don’t claim there are three Gods but one God. And this God is “One” but in three persons. But then strange enough they try and use Mark 8:38, to claim that Jesus will come in “His father’s Glory”.

Well, now that doesn’t show “three persons” now does it? Rather than Jesus taking up the 1st person in the Godhead, now that seems to be a contradiction.

Secondly, Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” (John 20:17)

If Jesus did come in the father’s glory, which means the father was on earth the same time Jesus was on earth, why is Jesus saying in (John 20:17) I am going up to my father? Thus proving that the father never came to the earth.

Jesus further stresses his Father is not on earth but in heaven; None of those who call me `Lord’ will enter the kingdom of God, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” [ Matthew 7:21 ]

If the father did come in his glory to the earth, Jesus would have said; the one who does the will of my father who’s on earth and in heaven, yet (Mathew 7:21) suggests the father is really in heaven and not really on the earth. And if Christians insist, He was really on earth, are they telling us that God the Son, and the Father died on the cross?

So God died on the Cross? A God that has no beginning nor end, yet tasted temporary death? Just as humans taste temporary death?

And in the same verse, Jesus says ” my god” which means; He has a God. Furthermore, Jesus says;

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me (John 14:1).

Jesus makes a distinction between Him and God. Believe in God. Then He says believe also in Me. So Jesus coming in his Fathers glory does not mean, Jesus is the same God as the father, rather Jesus comes figuratively as the Fathers glory since he will be representing much of his Fathers works on earth.;

For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human (1 Timothy 2:5)

So Jesus is just delivering God’s Glory to humankind as the mediator.

There is a Christian by the name of Tim Barnett his website found here: https://www.str.org/w/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-gospel-of-mark

That tries to provide “Evidence from Marks Gospel for the divinity of Jesus, I read through them, and quite frankly most of them were extremely weak, and I’ve answered most of them, but to be fair I will address just a few of them, that maybe have not been answered before, so here we go;

Tim Barnett then uses the next verse: The  unclean spirits recognize Jesus as the Holy One of God, who has the power to destroy them.“And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, ’What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God’”( Mark (1:23-24).

Muslim Response:

If you notice the ending of the passage which gives it away: ”  I know who you are—the Holy One of God’”(1:23-24).

If Jesus was the God, the passage would have read: ” I know who you are—the Holy One God’”(1:23-24). And not the Holy One (of) God’”(1:23-24). As the verse reads.

This clearly shows, Jesus is (of) God, meaning He comes from God (of)  God, and not God himself. In addition, the term “Holy” is also a title given to angels. (Psalms 89: 7-34)

■ Christians then use these verses from Marks Gospel to Prove Jesus is God.

( Mark 5:6-7) Where Jesus has’ authority and power.

( Mark 7:18-19) Jesus has the authority to change God’s law.

Muslim Response:

The Christian needs to be consistent because the Bible teachers, all though Jesus has authority to change the law, or has an authoritative potion. This does not mean His God. Read these verses;

Jesus said: My doctrine is not my own; it comes from him who sent me.” [ John 7:16 ]

So here we can changes Jesus makes, it doesn’t come from Jesus own doctrine, but rather this instruction comes from God himself who sent Jesus, and Jesus is merely transmitting those new laws.

As for Jesus having “Authority”, the question is did He give himself that authority? The answer is No. Let’s read;

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Mathew 28:18)

If Jesus was God, would God need to give himself Authority? The answer is no. God always has Authority, He doesn’t need to take authority from someone else, the fact that he said he was given authority means at one time Jesus didn’t have authority. Are Christians telling us, Jesus was not a God at some stage of his life?

This proves that no matter what kind of authority, Jesus was given, there was always a greater authority than him.

Tim Barnett then brings this verse: Jesus’ words are put at the same level as God’s words.

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” ( Mark 13:31)

Muslim response:

It is extraordinary how far Christians will go to exaggerate a sentence about Jesus.

Jesus said: My doctrine is not my own; it comes from him who sent me.” [ John 7:16 ] So the words, Jesus speaks are not his words, they are from the one who sent him. “Jesus also said; My Father(God) is greater than I” (John 14:28). Thus it’s the father’s words that will not pass away, not Jesus own words. Notice Mark 13:31, does not say ” my “own” words. Then that would mean Jesus own words. The fact that he said “my words” could mean, Jesus is displaying the father’s words.

Tim Barnett then brings up; Jesus places Himself above men and angels in His relationship to the Father.

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ( Mark 13:32)


I am astonished that a Christian can use, Mark 13:32 to prove that Jesus is God. Tim Barnett says, Jesus places himself above Men and angels.

The Question is does He hold himself above God the Father? Not at all. Prophets are known to be above Angels or Men, so that doesn’t prove a thing.

The Bible even suggests Jesus was made “lower” than angels.

But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than angels for a little while.
(Hebrews 2:9)

Now just imagine how Blasphemous that would sound if, Jesus was God, and Hebrews read:

But we do see God, who was made lower than angels for a little while.
(Hebrews 2:9)

Also, the verse itself proves Jesus as the son, is not God, the verse clearly says, the “son” who is the second person in the Godhead (Trinity), has no idea when the “hour” is. So it’s incredibly bizarre that this Christian even tried to attempt to use this verse to prove that Jesus was God.

If Jesus was God in this verse:

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ( Mark 13:32)

Then this is how the Verse should have looked like:

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, but only the Son and Father” ( Mark 13:32)

However, the text says, nor the son…

In conclusion of my rebuttal section:

I need to stress this point again, no matter how many verses Christians wish to bring up in the Gospel of Mark to prove Jesus is God, at best most of the things they bring up as you can see, are ambiguous, and not very explicit like we find in the Gospel of Mathew or gospel of John where Jesus is clearly and explicitly identified as God:

19 – Jesus called (God) explicitly.

Mark: No Mention

Luke: No Mention

Mathew: 1:23 Yes mentioned

John: 20:28 Yes Mentioned.

That in itself confirms the point, that Jesus is called explicitly God does not come until later into the gospels.

I challenge all those “Christian Apologists” who think there is a strong case for Christology in the “Gospel of Mark”, I CHALLENGE them, that whenever they want to prove that Jesus is God to any Muslim, I challenge them, to never use the Gospel of Luke, Mathew or John. Never mention them in any of your Apologetic material, never use them in your debates, whenever you want to prove that Jesus is God, only use the Gospel of Mark, since you sincerely believe that Marks Gospel is sufficient enough evidence to prove that Jesus is God. And I bet not a single Christian Apologist, will be brave enough to only use the Gospel of Mark. Because deep down, they know that without using the other gospels their case will never be as strong, and that is why you will never see a Christian using Marks Gospel alone to prove the divinity of Christ, it’s rather always in conjunction with using either the Gospel of Mathew or John or Paul’s letters. So let’s see this brave Christian activist who is willing to use “only the Gospel of Mark” for the rest of his life, calling people to the proof that Jesus is God. I would love to see, how many people his convinced and converted that Jesus is truly God.


Pr. Bart Ehrman has a new article where He admits there was a “low” Christology in early Gospels while “High” Christology in later Gospel.

In saying that, He also suggested even in lower Christology he didn’t make himself equal with God. Or the Same God. And that Jesus being divine meant, being more than ordinary human-like divine as in he could perform miracles..etc.

In What SENSE is Jesus “God” in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? My Change of Mind


Taliban Bans Female Judges?

Muslim – Response:

IslamQ&A website gives some good points why women can not be selected as judges:


We Created men and women equal in Allah’s sight, though Islam understands they have biological differences. And Men and Women can understand they are different, but they can also work their differences harmoniously without trying to live up to man’s and women’s expectations. They each go at their own pace. Islam does believe however in certain gender roles.

Secular Liberalism = Believes in Equal Rights but check this out. It seems what they encourage isn’t reflecting in their modern Society:

Also consider: The Term (Feminism) originates from the Western Activists. This Term is Un-Known in the Muslim World due to Female oppression being Low in Muslim World. Most Feminist Movements are located in Western World.

U.S soldier, sexist comment?

American Soldier tells Iraqi soldiers that they are acting like a bunch of women. Due to them being scared and Coward.

See video: https://www.facebook.com/FireourGovernment/videos/415058006628433/

Also note, the West also believes in gender roles. That’s why they will never choose a woman to jump in the boxing ring to fight Mike Tyson. They will always pick a Man to do that!

So gender roles isn’t something strange, and the West still practise it to this very day!

Now a Western may say, well Females can still box in Womens competition.

But that still doesn’t prove a thing, because women can’t box against Men and take advantage of the same level of prize money, viewing, and status. Again they segregate between Men and Women that proves their not co-equal.

In the article bellow we highlight Scientific and Medical reasons for why women can not be appointed as a Judge, read the full article in the attached link below:

In the next video we give more points on the reasons why women in Islam can not be selected as Rulers or Judges, we also show many inconsistency in the West where Womens and Mens rights are taken away from them:

Further proving Gender Roles in Islam from the Quran and Hadith

Now will be showing, How the West imposes it’s values on Afganistan.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Gender roles, even feminists believe in it!

When they ask women what type of men they prefer to marry or have long-term relationships with, they say they prefer macho men who fit the profile of “benevolent sexists” who exude “toxic masculinity.” Even the self-labelled feminists have this preference. Given the option, no woman prefers to marry a weak man who is a pushover, who actively avoids leadership, who wants to be a meek, quiet follower of women. This type of man is literally disgusting to women.

In other words, the gender component is embedded in human nature.



Some Modernist/or Western Feminist will say things like No such thing as gender roles in the West like your Islamic interpretation. Everyone gets an equal opportunity.

My Response:

When they look for the next fighter to take on Mike Tyson heavy weight champion of the World . They look for another MAN not another Women.

If they knew men and women were equal. Then they would raise a female boxer to take on Tyson wouldn’t they?

Should I continue with gender roles, like how UFC uses beautiful women called a (ring girl) is a woman who enters the ring between rounds of a combat sport, carrying a sign that displays the number of the upcoming round.

This sort of gender roles are all over Western Liberal society, but you wish to think there is no gender roles and everything is just equal across the board 🙃

It’s clear that gender roles do exist in the West, and their is no real equality, when biology proves there are differences.


Muslim Feminism leads to Apostasy.

When you show a certain Hadith to a feminist. And they say, that hadith has to be rejected because it’s Patriarchy, and also not found in the Quran. Just an example where the Hadith says, women should worship men in a symbolic sense. The Feminist then gets outraged and says, that’s symbolic Patriarchy and must be a weak Hadith or even fabricated. The same goes when you show hadith where it, which explicitly talks about women need to take permission from their husbands who they let into their house. Also how women pray behind men, and not men pray behind women, the list goes on. So the Muslim Feminists is outraged by all of this, saying it’s men who wrote that hadith to serve men’s desires.

But then I roll my eyes because there are many examples of Patriarchy within the Quran. Though I don’t like to use the term Patriarchy, because this term Patriarchy has had a negative meaning since it’s been used for ways to abuse women so let’s rather call it, gender roles, just to name a few examples:

Quran says Men can have more women. But nowhere in the History of Islam or the Quran women can have more than one man. Is that too Patriarchy?

The Quran says, that women ought to obey men. But never says Men need to obey Women.
Sure 4:34

The Quran speaks of men getting Hoorlayin (virgin wives), but it doesn’t mention women getting Hoorlayin.

The Quran speaks about women being disciplined using the (Miswak) but never a Man being disciplined using the (Miswak) I.e in none violent way of course. See Tafsir ibn Kathir under Ibn Abbas’s conduct.
Sureh 4:34

The Quran speaks about, men having right-hand possession (concubines). It does not say Women can have male concubines.

The Quran speaks about, men being the Protectors, providers and maintainers of women, but it does not say women are the Protectors, providers and maintainers of Men.

The Quran speaks about Prophets to be Men, but never does it say that there were Women Prophet’s in the history of Scripture.

The Quran speaks how during transactions, only 1 man witness is needed. And Two female witnesses. It’s never 1 female Witness.
Surah al-Baqarah, Ch:2: V.283

The Quran speaks how men get twice the inheritance women to get.
Quran: 4:11-12

The Quran speaks about women having to wear a Hijab over most parts of their body, while men only have a specific area such as the Awrah.

So as you can see, gender roles in the Quran are apparent, so if you’re going to reject the Hadith, then to be consistent you would ought to also reject the Quran for Patriarchy or more correctly “gender roles”.
This is our religion and we are unapologetic about it. There are many things also in the Quran and Hadith that favour women and men can not do it also. For example how women don’t have to protect and maintain men, how it’s not hard (compulsory) upon her to attend Cumah while men ought to, how men have to perform Jihad fighting in Battle where you risk your life, and women are not required to risk their lives as such, how men have to pay the Mahir (Bridal gift) even when it can be in the hundreds and thousands, but women don’t have too, and the list goes on. Where women don’t need to fast during breastfeeding or menstruation while men still have to fast, no matter what their work dealings are, and so on.

So this is what we have been saying all along, feminism leads to apostasy because to believe in Western Feminism, it’s designed for you to reject not just the hadith but also the Quran.

There are several ways Apostasy occurs among these feminists. Some of these are more subtle while others are much more apparent.

1 – Where they completely denounce the faith
2 – They may reject Sahi hadith even though it’s classified as being authentic by the council of scholars.
3 – Give a completely different meaning to the verse ( which is pretty much the same as rejecting the verse)
4 – The verse is no longer applicable, or it just is metaphorical. Which is another way of rejecting the ayah.
5 – Openly reject the verse of the Quran. Despite this still claim they are Muslim and accuse you not to judge them and only God can judge them.
6 – Claim that the Hadith contradicts the Quran based on it not being found in the Quran. (By the way, this isn’t how Islamic jurisprudence works, because everything is helal until the Quran or hadiths proves its haram. And everything is Haram until the Quran and Hadith prove it to be Helal. If either the Quran or Hadith is silent then it becomes lawful, and vice versa.


Feminism started all innocent, you know like sticking up for women oppression and domestic abuse or equal right and opportunity in the workplace like equal pay and so on. But these days it pushed itself into an ideology where it tries to remove every type of gender role and tries to change any legal code or religious belief because they continued to get blinded by their hatred towards men and so they think that anything that is withheld from women classifies as a Misogynistic idea. But of course, you would hardly see them complain when scripture also favours them. Then it’s all fine and justified. And when they are pushed into “consistency in their logic” is when the next stages to apostasy take place.


Jesus will fight the Jews and not the Muslims

By:Mustafa Sahin.

There are Christians who heavily promote the love for the Jews. They will proclaim things like, may God save Israel or things like;

So as you can see, these Christian’s heavily promote Israel as though they are Gods chosen people, despite Jesus who proclaims to Go to War against Israel. Let’s read further.

When Christians talk about Jesus is love and Peaceful but the “Islamic Prophet is WAR Lord?

Read from Christian website;


About the End Times. They say “Yes” Jesus did a lot of wars in the Old Testament Bible, however, Jesus came in the New Testament to teach, Peace and Love and no more killing and Wars and taught us to turn the other ” Cheek,

Yet this Christian Website says ” Jesus comes as a WAR Lord in his second coming:

Interesting points from website with my additions;

-The Devil Anti-Christ will sign a contract with Israel and not Saudi Arabia. So much for Christians sucking up to Jews! And defending Israel.

-The devil will then ” Rule the Jews” for seven years! Note the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) will be accepted by the Jews as their Leader. Notice nothing about ” Islam or Arabs being Ruled by the Anti-Christ. So much for Islam being of the devil!

  • The Anti Christ will be Worshiped in the Jureselem Temple. Not in the Islamic Mosque!

-Jesus will then WAR against the Anti -Christ AND his ARMY. Ask yourself who is the Army of Israel. Hamas or IDF?

-Jesus will then cast ALL unbeliever’s into a Lake of Fire.

Halulya God of Peace?

It seems Jesus will be fighting none other then the Zionist Israeli run by the Anti Christ.

If Islam was the Devil why nothing about Fighting Saudi Arabia?

Even Christian Apologist Sam Shamoun admits ” Israel is an Abomination”

See the video:

See also this video how Jews insult Jesus.


Un-Answered Contradictions in the Gospel

By: Mustafa Sahin

“page under construction “

Biblical Textural Contradiction.

How many disciples did Jesus minister? 70 or 72?

Well the Christian website admits: that ancient manuscripts have differences, some say 70 others say 72. However they argue it’s more “likely it’s 70. And that the 0 was changed to a 2 was simply a “copiest error”.



However this begs the question. One could argue, it’s not 70 but rather 72. And that the 72 was accidentally rounded off to the nearest number of 70 by “accident”. However it should have been originally left at 72 as it was “inspired”.
So it’s really a circular arguement, there could be two possible explainations, both invalidating each other’s theory.

It is thus clear, Christian’s do not have “The holy spirit ” to tell them conclusively which is truelly the Word of God. That being 70 or 72? And so they just guess which it is, like it’s Russian roulette let’s hit the fire on the gun and see where it lands.

Honestly is this, what Christian’s call the divinely inspired word of God? What about all the other theological teachings in the bible can one say, well their just copiest Errors? Those who had the “Holy Spirit” while copying didn’t the voice the holy spirit tell them you made a mistake? Christian’s tells us often how the holy Spirit guides them to all truths. And it even talks to them in toungs. We hear how even miracles are being performed, and yet no miracle to correct the bible? Oh wait, if you ever bring this up, a Christian will say, do not test God!

It’s basically a trick way of saying, look I understand we kinda got exposed but don’t try and test God, because thats “blasphemy” it’s basically a convenient way, of trying to silence criticism. And Yet the bible says, “prove all things: (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Interesting hey?

Furthermore Christian’s tell us, they can indeed refer to the oldest manuscripts to repair any scribal Errors, so I ask then why they couldn’t fix the issue of 70 or 72? Perhaps they can not because these discrepancy are too found in the earliest ancient manuscripts.


Does Jesus Judge people or does he not?

No: John 12:47

Jesus said “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Yes: John 5:22

Jesus said ” Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.
Quran – 4:82


Is 1 Samuel 15:3 and Numbers 31 explained under Christian apologetics ?


20200507_150345By: Mustafa Sahin

Christian Apologists admits in a Debate ” lots of really bad things in the Old Testament” meaning that his Jesus the God of the Old Testament commanded his followers to go and kill; Men, women, children and infants. The verses in the O.T (1 Samuel 15:3) & (Numbers 31) in the name of Jesus.

Ali Atai pointed out, that Moses in the Bible in Numbers 31.

Killed Women and Children, and the non virgins girls were given to men. So they can be raped. Otherwise why would virgin girls lives spared? And not the non virgin ones? This is all ordained by Jesus, because Christians say Jesus is God. And saying that was the Old Testament doesn’t make the “crime go away”.
Read also 1 Samuel 15:3, again the Bible endorsed the killing of women and babies.

1 Samuel 15:3 New International Version (NIV)3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Yes, Jesus the God of the O.T endorses for his followers to go stick swords into infants. Numbers 31:17-18 King James Version (KJV)

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Exactly keep all the virgin girls to “yourselves” If Jesus was alive today he would be arrested for war crimes he commited in the Old Testament for endorsing such violence that, He would be held accountable under the Human rights watch, and charged for war crimes under the United nations commission.

Christian Apologist David Wood is reminded again, of the bad things in the Bible see:

David wood says, those bad things happened because of the hardness of their heart meaning they were sinners.

My response:

And so what was their sin? It was “Unbelief”..

And so God sent them a army and killed them by the sword, and even infant babies and children were killed. However the non virgin girls were killed but not the virgin ones. So if they all were sinners due to unbelief why were the virgin lives spared? And then how can babies and children be sinners? What sin did a infant commit? There’s Davids claim they deserved death because they were sinners doesn’t make sense.

Now just imagine, we said that Allah gathered a Muslim army to go and kill babies and infants women and children because they were “sinners”?

David wood, would have had a field day with this, and said look how barbaric Allah is,  He even tells Muslims to stick swords into infant babies, women and children.

So David Woods explaination fails miserably. Claiming they were sinners doesn’t work, as not all sinners were killed, and we know babies can not sin, since they are sinless. And if you want to claim all babies are born into sin, then are we to believe that all babies should be killed including all humanity because we are all born into sin? So again that makes no sense. So what we are left with, the Biblical God of the Old Testament is presented as a bad God, with bad Morals. Now someone might say, what about Allah who kills babies and infants by natural disasters, like cyclones and hurricanes.

I would argue, there is still a difference, why? Because here we see God working alone, He gives life and takes life. And so if He wishes to take a life, by natural means so that life returns to him, so be it. But then on the other hand you have a God, that specifically instructs human beings to stick swords into infants because he claims they are unbelievers and in sin, but then the same God says, don’t stick swords into older virgin girls who are sinners too. So why does God prefer virgin older girls over babies? Its really bizzar. And what makes it even more so bizzar, is when Christians all day argue how evil and barbaric Terrorism is, and they point to groups like Al-Qa’ida or ISIS who commit acts of Terrorism like blowing themselves up in market places, killing both men, women and children. And they do this because they are brain washed to believe this is what God is instructing them to do. And God is instructing them to do this, because they are sinners and unbelievers. And so the Christian will say, look at this barbarism, look at this Terrorism. And if that Terrorist said, I’m doing this because God told me to do it. The moral justification would never be accepted by a Christian, which begs the question then, why do they accept the Terrorism ordained by the Biblical God, who tells his soldiers to do the very same act of ISIS.

1) Kill the sinners

2) Target women and children

Or perhaps there is a double standard here. One standard for Arab terrorists. And another standard for Biblical Terrorists?

Refuting Keith Thompson Part 1/2:

Topic: is 1 Samuel 15:3 literal or Non-Literal?

Keith Thompson thinks so his article can be found here: http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/religion_of_peace.html

He Writes;

Muslim apologist Nadir Ahmed argues, “Christians also believe that God inspired the Bible. Therefore, if God = Jesus, then it was Jesus(God) who inspired this commands [sic] to go commit genocide against this nation of people as we read in 1 Sam 15:3. These are Jesus Christ’s words. What is even more demented, is that Jesus Christ ordered the killing of babies!”(6). However, there are several problems with Ahmed’s “analysis.”

As noted, this type of “destroy all that they have … man and woman, child and infant” language was commonplace in the Near East and is not to be taken literally. It was simply a way back then of saying there was going to be war victory. How do we know Saul did not literally annihilate all the Amalekites including women and children? Because later in 1 Samuel 27:8 we see that there are Amalekites still living. They are also seen again in 1 Samuel 30 in massive number (four hundred) (vv. 1, 17). Thus, to argue Saul literally wiped out of all Amalekites including women and children is erroneous since the totality of the book demonstrates a great number of them were not meant to be killed. Again when those in the Ancient Near East would say they were going to (or did) wipe out all of the people of a land; it was a hyperbole to communicate desired decisive war victory.

Now it must be asked: who were the Amalekites and why was war with them justified? Immediately after Israel crossed the Red Sea and camped in the wilderness in Rephidim in Exodus 17, these barbaric nomad Amalekites viciously attacked them there (Exodus 17:1, 8). As Copan notes, “The Amalekites were relentless in their aim to destroy Israel, and they continued to be a thorn in Israel’s side for generations (e. g., Judg. 3:13; 6:3-5, 33; 7:12; 10:12; etc).”(7)

Muslim Response:
This Rebbutal is going to be very short and very simple. Keith argues that when God orderd Biblical followers to go and kill all the Amelikites including Women and Children and Infants this does not mean “Literally” what is the Bases of his arguement? Simply because in other passages of the Bible their were “Still Amelekites found living.

This arguement is so bad and embarrassing” all it takes is some common sense. Just because” Their was a WAR ordering the total extermination of the people, yet finding people who survived the onslaught does not mean the onslaught did not take place. That would be equivalent to say, if we found Holocaust survivers living in a place “still alive” it does not mean a ” Holocaust did not take place. In fact during WARS or say” WARS intended for genocide doesn’t mean the perpetrators are going to get ” Everybody. As you know during WARS people flee their home lands and even go into hiding. So to claim Because there were still Amelekites found living does not help at all ” Keiths arguement that vast majority of the Amelites did not get slaughtered in fact he only mentions their was 400 of them found still living which proves still that thousands and thousands of them got slaughtered and only 400 fleed the town or went into hiding makes just as a valid arguement.

Infact that’s a contradiction made Keith, because Saul was told why he didn’t destroyed the entire Amalekites….

“But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.
(1 Samuel 15:20)

Keiths is clearly being deceptive. That’s not the language for that time it’s a literal statement when they said destroy all living things

When we even go to the (Christian Tefsir)

Mathew Henry commentary: Tells us that the Evil amoung them were Sacrafised to the Lord. What does Sacrafise mean?

Pulpit Commentary Tefsir: Tells us that ALL living things to be killed including Men and Cattle to be killed, and even the Gold and Silver taken off them and be put into a treasury and all their belongings Burnt down. Again how is this Non-Literal?

John Gills commentary Tefsir:
Again John Gill talks about how all will be slaughtered Men Women Children Infants and Animals. Nothing about non-literal terms as Keith Suggest in all of the commentary here.

If Keiths arguement was ” True” then we would see the same consistency else where in the Biblical Wars. Take for example (Numbers 31) Where Moses and his Army killed many Women and Children and were orderd to kill the Non- virgin girls and leaving the Virgin ones alive to be distributed as spoils of War. Now how will Keith Thompson explain away keeping virgins girls to give away as spoils of War after Murdering their Parents? Literally? So his arguement fails on the premise of ” Inconsistency”. If 1 Samuel 15:3 is Non-Literal them so ought to be Numbers 31 which is clearly not.

Keith Thompson then went onto say that the War was Justified, yet how can Sticking Swords into babies be Justified blows ones mind. And claiming it’s not literal has no biblical bases at all.

Refuting Keith Thompson on Numbers 31
Part 2/2

By:Mustafa Sahin

He Writes here: http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/religion_of_peace.html

Rape of Virgins Advocated in Numbers 31:17-18?

“17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:17-18).

Offering an Islamic distortion and misuse of this text is Zaatari who claims that in this text the Israelites “left all the virgins to themselves whom they obviously slept with.”(19) However, this inaccuracy or lie is refuted when 1) one realizes premarital sex (fornication) is condemned in Deuteronomy 22:13-21; and 2) one consults 25:1-4, 6 of Numbers for the context of 31:17-18.

Once task two is done one understands the Moabite and Midianite women had sexually enticed the Israelite men to worship false gods such as Baal. Hence, the reason God spared the young virgins among the Midianites in 31:17-18, instead of the older women who slept with the Israelite men, was because the young virgins were not guilty of this heinous crime. Only the older women were. It was therefore a kind and merciful gift that these young innocent virgins were spared by Moses and the Israelites in 31:17-18. As Old Testament scholar Ronald B. Allen relayed,

“Only young girls … would be saved alive; only they had not contaminated themselves with the debauchery of Midian and Moab in Baal worship (v. 18). The suggestion is that the participation of women from Midian in the debased orgiastic worship of Baal described in chapter 25 was extensive, not selective.”(20)

It is the Muslims who read into the text the false idea that the Israelites took the young virgin girls in order to sleep with them. The text does not actually say such a thing, however. Thus, it is not “obvious” that this occurred as Zaatari claims. This is the Muslim mindset and lifestyle (Muhammad slept with a child named Aisha. being read backwards into the text when the text itself does not actually say these things. Titus 1:15 gives the reason why Muslims such as Zaatari pervert this merciful act toward these innocent virgin girls turning it into something corrupt and perverse: “To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled” (Titus 1:15).

Muslim Response:

Here we go Keith Thompson yet again makes seriously bad arguements, he goes on to say” the Bible no where makes the claim that the virgin girls kept in this passage were ” Used” for sex. And the reason why they were kept alive and only the Non-virgin ones were killed because they defiled them selves meaning had illegal sex with the idols unlike the virgin ones who were spared. Not because they wanted virgin girls for sex he argues rather because they unlike the Non-Virgin ones did not commit fornication with Idols.

Now if this arguement was valid? One needs to ask “Keith” if the purpose of keeping the Virgins alive was not for sex, why was not the “little ones from amoung the males spared as well? Is Keith Suggesting that little male children like babies and infants and kids were also defiled themselves fornicating with Idols? Now how absurd would that be? And how come these virgin girls were given to a Priest as a tribute by Moses( Bible Numbers 31:40). What is a male priest going to do with 32 Virgin Girls? How come women are not given virgin girls and only Men get them? Sounds fishy does it not? Why doesn’t the same Priest not get virgin Male Children if it’s not about Sex?

So as you can see ” Keiths Non-sensical arguements do not add up. At all and only prove that virgin Girls were only taken for Men to enjoy them as concubines. Even King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines in the Bible for him to enjoy

Maybe thats Helal for Moses to follow that Example for why he gave the priest 32 virgins for cohabitation.

Finaly here is a response to Christians why try and throw the Old Testament under the bus to say; That was the Old Testament. Therefore the old testament no longer applies.

Saying that was the Old Testament, doesn’t make the bad moral judgments of the Biblical God go away. It just proves, the Biblical God, was unaware of making the right decisions, which begs the question about a deficiency in Gods wisdom and intelligence on morals, as presented by the Bible on the concept of God.

Allah knows Best.


Hadith: I have left no trial more severe to Men then women?

Critics of Islam including Feninists among Muslims bring this hadith up to try and attack Islam or attack the hadith in order to show Islam or Hadith belittles women.

It reads;

I don’t understand, why critics or Muslim Feminists are saying this post is causing harm. And they want an explanation. With all due respect? I’m astonished that people are unaware of human development.

This has nothing to do with women being degraded or women made to look evil. Rather, what is one of the most treasured things to a man is women. Therefore women can be a great fitnah (Trial or Test) for men, because of Mens strong desire for women, which can cause Men to fall into great temptations and sin.
It is commonly known that men watch more pornography than women


And men have a higher sex drive than women even from a biological standpoint.
Source: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5?journalCode=psra

So it makes sense why women can be a great trial fitnah for Men. Remember even from a young age it’s predominantly boys chasing girls around as opposed to girls chasing boys around. So Islam forbids things like watching pornography and committing things like Adultery and Fornication or even touching non-mahrem women for the matter, therefore since this is a strong temptation especially for men based on even science and human development, it is why women are a servere test for men.

So interestingly they are too quick to dismiss the Hadith as being inaccurate or misogynistic remove your femiNazi spectacles it will help you see a lot clearer.

Allah knows best.


Are Humanists really peace-loving hippies?

Last updated: 29th, Dec. 2021


My Response:

You said you will not advocate for violence of which ever kind?

Um, Hello.

Every law in every country advocates violence to restore public order. That’s how governments function.

The same people, who happened to give you humanism and human rights themselves under international law, advocate violence depending on the circumstance. That’s how they restore peace and order, and at times use the same measures to spread their values to the rest of the globe.


Perhaps you are an apostate from basic humanist values. The same humanist values, that murder by license human fetus. So you are in no way of lecturing Us on violence, by coming here and talking to us about the Quran. The fact that you invite people to hellfire through your Godless delusion, endangers the lives of many people, by sending them to eternal damnation. Your human rights values give more value to a dog than a human being. For example when humanist atheists agnostics were asked the Question? Would you save your drowning dog or your neighbour? But you had to pick one. These Godless humanists picked a Dog over a fellow human being.

God, I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be a humanist. He is more of a Dogist than a humanist, and this is the problem of Atheist humanists when humans are reduced to no different than any other Animal because again as Richard Dawkins a famous Atheist humanist puts it, there is no difference then a pig and a human fetus. Well, no wonder they support Murdering of a fetus by Abortion, that’s the price you pay when adopting the theory of Atheist, they con people into thinking that they are peaceful. When the reality shows depending on the circumstance they can be the most barbaric of all. A question was asked, to these same humanists if you were the only two people on the earth and had to choose between raping a women or allow the planet to go into human extinction. Most humanists justify raping that lady who refused to have a baby with him and continue human existence. To know wonder why a Humanist Atheist preacher known as Sam Harris who justified rape saying it helped pass genes from one species to another species.

Another question was asked, if there was a law that said we need to kill half the population of the earth which includes the youth, to save the planet from collapsing (hypothetically speaking) then these very same humanists would justify those killings to save the rest of humanity. What im merely showing is that these Humanists and Atheists are the biggest con-artists when they claim they are not violent. When shit hits the fan they are the first one to comprise cruelty and death, to justify the means. In Islam for example, if such circumstances occurred, we would allow the world to end, and murder is murder, even if that means it will cause the earth to end because we, unlike Humanist atheists, have principles. But for them, there are no principles, and pleasure comes before human life, self-interest comes before humanity. Humanist atheism is ruthless so don’t ever believe them when they claim they believe in peace to the World, and how under humanism everything is colourful rainbows 🌈

So to sum up;

Three Questions to ask these pretend humanists Atheists.

Atheists identify themselves generally as being Humanists and claim to be ethically upright people.

Question one:

If you’re neighbour and you’re pet dog was drowning and you could only save 1 who would you choose?

Question two:

If you had to save the planet from self destruction, but in order for this to happen you had to immediately exterminate 80% of the human population in order to save the planet. Would you order the killings of these human beings?

Wait and see their responses just let them keep talking and see how they self expose themselves on how much they really value human life!

Question 3:

Ask an Atheist if He could only save one at sea, would He prefer to save a 5-year-old drowning child. Or the last ever-existing female Panda Bear?

Which Would it Be?

Then ask them how exactly do they define themselves as “Humanists”. They are anti-human!

This is how these Atheists can not be moral people, they are against the human race, for they have made animals equal to humans. Beware of Atheists they are indeed cruel human beings, when shit hits the fan, you are certainly not on their saving list agenda.

These atheists probably donate more money to Animal Welfare organizations than they do towards donating to starving children around the world but then have the audacity to blame God for the condition of the human race.

In fact I kid you not, I remember one time listening to a interview of a British couple who by the way we’re extremely wealthy people. I’m talking say, millions and millions of dollars. The interviewing asked, you are old age and have no children, what will you decide to do with all this money once you are gone.

Of course one would have expected them to say, will be donating all this money for all the starving children of the world right?

No, she said she really loves Tigers. And she strongly believes in the conservation of animals, so she will be donating all her wealth towards Animal welfare programs.

No seriously folks, this is a true story.



See more;


Atheists are Free thinkers?

There is a belief among Atheists, that believing in Religion is a form of indoctrination, and that when you are a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu, you are unable of thinking for yourself, and you are not free to think critically about your faith, and therefore those who believe in Religion are somehow brainwashed and therefore cannot think for themselves, and that’s the reason they say, why people who believe in organised religion or the concept of a God, it is because of this very reason.

I’ll be sharing why this fallacious arguement doesn’t make any logical sense, and in fact, I will share with you, points that can brush those who follow the free-thinking claim are not free-thinkers themselves and they too follow Atheistic indoctrination. Now here is the thing, these Atheists seem to suggest when you are in religion you can’t freely think for yourself. Well here is the one million dollar question? If it’s true that when you are a Muslim you can not think for yourself and make rational decisions then why do Ex-Muslims like Harris Sultan who was able to “Free think” for himself and leave Islam? Surely if this person under Islam was not able to think for himself because of all that religious indoctrination, then He shouldn’t have left Islam correct? The very fact that He did leave Islam proves in itself that when you are a Muslim you can critically think about your own beliefs. If Muslims could not critically think for themselves then why does people like Harris Sultan open platforms targeting the Muslim youth? Well, He does so because He knows that just like He was a free thinker, and left Islam then all these other Muslims to can think for themselves and therefore why He spends all his time and energy preaching to them. You see folks, this free-thinking concept is no more than a derogatory slur, and a colonialist inferiority complex of seeing Muslims less themselves, because they believe that when you believe in non-religious things that is when you become progressive and intelligent and “enlightened”, but this begs the Question was the Muslim not intelligent to think for himself when He left Islam? And what about Atheists who believed in all of those things like “reason” and critical thinking, and logic, despite this they left Atheism and have either become Muslim or Christian, are we now to believe that when you become an Atheist, you are now able to think critically and reason, now have to explain why those who lived that progressive thought process have come to Islam or who have converted to Islam or Christianity?

This now debunks the notion that only when you are an atheist is when you can think critically, because if that were the case then no Atheist would accept religion now would they? Nor would any Muslim or Christian leave Islam, the fact that they do does not mean you have to be first an Atheist to critically be able to think for yourself. Now that we have cleared that blunder, what about the claim that indoctrination hinders a person’s free-thinking abilities?

Well let’s show some points on how one can brush Atheists as those who have been indoctrinated and they can’t think for themselves as they want you to believe because they too receive indoctrination on a daily bases from Atheistic agents.

“Stop being a sheep and be an individual. Think for yourself. That’s the only way you can truly be ethical, intelligent, and free!”

The mantras of individualism are well-known today, for they are a staple of most people’s thinking. To be independent from the crowd is considered a sign of superiority compared to those who merely follow.

But individualism is a myth.

The idea that man is an island capable of separating themselves completely from the grasps of societal norms, values, and ideas is utterly delusional. Human beings think and act synthetically. What we call the “individual” is merely a reconfiguration of accepted norms and principles, much akin to phenotype. Differences are considered more genuine only by virtue of the fact that others have yet to determine particular combinations of dress, words, gestures, and yes, even concepts.

In other words, there is no such thing as non-conformity on some grand scale — a type of detachment born ex nihilo. Even so, the idea that one should detach themselves in such a way is absolutely absurd, because in order to survive in the world and be successful one needs to conform with their peers to a degree. A man in total isolation ultimately dehumanizes himself and runs the risk of insanity; for humans are social creatures. And in order to be ‘social’ one needs to conform to a society.

And this is why I find it ludicrous when certain people claim to now “think for themselves” as opposed to “following”. Whether you convert or deconvert from or to a religion/ideology the idea that you have become an individual as a result is an oxymoron — because all you’ve actually done is change what you conform to. Whether you adopt Islamic values or Western ones (or attempt a hybrid), you are conforming to something for which you had given no input prior. And even if your perspective is drastically different to others’, you’re still borrowing considerably from previous ideas in order to construct it.

We should not be so concerned with whether we’re “thinking for ourselves” as much as we should be concerned with what we’re thinking. Conformity or non-conformity means little if your ideas are invalid. Just because you grew up in a particular society doesn’t necessitate that said ideas become suspect; nor does it mean that said ideas are necessarily correct. And just because you move away from one society doesn’t mean you’ve left conformity all-together.

The reality is, when people say “think for yourself”, what they really mean is “agree with me”. And that’s a vacuous irony that needs to eventually be realized.

Topic: Atheist only panel?

Atheist: The only people on the Panel should be those non-indoctrinated, critical thinkers that can think for themselves. Forget religion, skin colour or politics. If they are educated, and can critically think, then they’re hired.

Me: of course Atheists are non-indoctrinated Critical thinker that can think for themselves.


A ExMuslim writes in response to a Muslim praising God He was born into a Muslim Family:

Responding to a ExMuslim Murat Mamkegh

Topic: You are a Muslim, because you were born into a Muslim family?

Muslim- Response:

One can say the same about being born into a FAMILY whos parents happen to be Atheist. There children more then likely will be Atheist too. We are all, impacted by the environment we live in.

If Richard Dawkins had a son, I’m certain he will grow up to be like his dad, someone that he looks up to. And one can say, the son of Dawkins is gifted. He learns first hand from his father about the Atheist world view.

In fact before I started practising my faith. I grew up with a Turkish community that is from Corum. It is well known that if you are from Corum, you are either a Alaweeh, or more Atheist. Especially the Corum community here in Melbourne, Australia. Extremely rarely you will find Sunni Followers among them. In fact I grew up with most of them even during my teenage life. The boys among them were Atheist’s, and surprisingly they were Atheists, because there fathers were Atheist’s too. Usually though the eldest Grandma would be practising. I met tons of them like this in my Turkish community here where I stay.

So the point is, when you want to talk about convenience, and how we are Muslim because of where we were brought up, one can argue the same for a lot of the Atheists too.

By the way, it is a gift of God to be born into a Muslim family because its like a first hand advantage, however in our theology we believe, it could also be a disadvantage, let me explain.

The punishment could be much greater, for one who has been gifted an advantage and yet does not take upon that opportunity and disregards it. When He could have been born into a Hindu family and left in the distance.

In saying that, we still believe God is the most just, he can guide anyone know matter how disadvantage one may perceive. For a example, there are people who are born into families who are brought up to be great enemies of Islam, and yet they find guidance, like the Jews in Israel for example, I know a brother like this. And there is also stories of that Dutch politician who worked for Geert Wilder’s, and yet he left his organisation to convert to Islam. Also we believe Gods mercy is so great, that according to Islamic theology, if you dont hear the pure message of Islam come to you, then there is no sin upon you. And you will not be punished. Some Scholars say, this also includes a person now day who lives in United States, and only hears a distorded version of Islam from FoxNews. Then he will not be judged, because he didn’t hear the truth rather a distorded version. And if He dies, he will not be judged as a disbeliever. Also consider, that if a person is born to a family very distant to Islam. And yet he still converts to Islam. His conversion to Islam will be seen as a greater reward then the one who happens to be raised in a Muslim household. Therefore in (Jennah) he shall see a greater portion of reward for being put in a much more difficult position, thus the reward is greater. So we shouldn’t always look at it as a disadvantage but it could also have advantages.

Murat, you follow the tune, of Dawkins who says those very words. Your a Muslim because your parents are and so on….

But if you really think deeply one can argue, most Americans are democrats because they come from a country of demoracts, or most Russians or Chinese are communist because they come from a communist country, so this logic can apply to everything and anyone. It is true, that we can all be impacted by our environmental circumstances, but this doesn’t mean we can not think for ourselves.

Because that’s the primary argument. Well if that were the case, then you as a Atheist’s had the opportunity to think for yourself and leave Islam. And there are many stories of Atheist’s who were brought up as Atheist’s and thought about it, and converted to Islam. So you can still be a free thinker, and have faith. Or you can chose to disbelieve also.

In fact, i was brought up in a Muslim family, but they weren’t practising. There was very little connection between us and God. I lived the secular Atheist life style and didn’t care about God, or if I had to serve him, if He existed. Later in my life, I did my own research and began to realise the truth. I was about 23 years old at the time. I also did research into other faiths. So because I was born into a Muslim family, it didn’t mean we were practising, as a lot of Muslim families are cultural Muslims, you know Muslim by name, and devout only when it came to the month of Ramadan. Yeh those types.

Everyday that I’m a Muslim, I don’t sit there and close my eyes. I don’t shut myself away from the free thinking community, I engage them, so I can hear what they have to say, and in doing so I continue to test my beliefs against there’s and by doing so, I’m open to dialogue, and I enjoy it because it strengthens my faith even more that I know I’m on the haqq ( truth) again I’m old enough and wise enough to make my own decisions in life. So you need to stop, treating us as if you are the only “free thinker”.

Also about convenience; being born a Muslim is God bless, to remain a Muslim requires effort. It’s the opposite of convenience. When a Muslim starts practising, convenience goes out the window. We are not like Christians, who don’t have to worship, they just believe Jesus died for sins and they don’t even have to go to church. Whereas Muslims, you are told to give up on most Western lifestyles, and every day your battle with your (nefs) desires to obtain away from Haram and wake up early to pray your selah. One can argue, it’s more convenient to become an Atheist and not have to tire oneself, with these things.


Evidences for the Corruption of the Old Testament

Under construction

Jews have a Torah set of Books not included in the Christian Old Testament. Why is that? If the Torah is preserved in it’s entirety?

Surely the Old Testament can not be the Word of Allah, in it’s complete original form and corruption has entered it.

See here:

These are Gods words

1 Samuel 15:3
New International Version
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally(A) destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Are we going to accept this as Allahs preserved word?

To order your soldiers to stick swords into babies? Not even the Animals are spared.

Sure then Islam must be a Terrorist cult by claiming this is Allahs words?

The O.T portrays a Prophet of Islam to have sex with his daughters who their daughters got him drunk.

This can not be Allah words as it has been clearly tampered with.


Sexual Profanity in the Bible/West VS Islam.

Last updated: 25th, Nov. 2021

Sexual Profanity in Western Media:

Pornography in the Bible

See the video on this topic:

Bible endorses strong Pornography a rebuttal back to Samuel Green on Ezkiel 23:

Pedophilia endorsed by the Bible:

Moses gave a priest 32 virgin Girls for Sexual intercourse.

Bible endorses Men to get 100 women in Christian Paradise.

Bible endorses Sexual intercourse with step Sister

Womens Breast to be like “Towers”.

Now for Islam:

Islam, answering the 72 virgin arguement.

Answering the Pedohilia claims:

Answering the Child grooming Gangs in the U.K

Shabbir Ali Refutes Sam Shamoun on the “rounded Breast” verse in the Quran.

Refuting Christians on the Adult Breast Feeding claims:

Refuting Sex with Animals claim in Islam




Jesus having TWO nature’s, brings into question Jesus being Sinless?

Discussing with a Christian: Jesus TWO Natures one being Human the other God according to Triniterians, we also discuss Jesus being “sinless therefore divine”?

Muslim Wrote:

Christians tell us the Human nature of Jesus, is not like his divine nature. Only the human nature has flaws like, he needs to sleep, gets hundry, ignorant about the last hour, it can die. Etc.

They argue the divine nature has no flaws, because its the divine nature that is God. But then i ask them, can the human “nature sin” They say: no. It can’t sin and never has it sinned. So again tell me how is the human natures flawed?

Christian Wrote:

Please clarify who said, “The human nature can’t sin and never has sinned,” and when they said it.

This sounds like something mis-quoted and/or taken out of context.


Muslim Wrote:

Hi Graham Harter, just about every Christian i have spoken to, say that Jesus has never sinned by his human nature nor divine nature, they have even gone to the extent to say his human nature was too perfect to fall into sin.

May i ask, do you believe Jesus sinned through his human experiences on earth?

Christian Wrote:

Orthodox Christology is in many respects quite a subtle and nuanced doctrine. The nuances need to be distinguished quite carefully, otherwise we can easily end up saying things we don’t really mean, and/or people can take us to mean things we haven’t actually said.

How much of that has been the case, i.e., mis-statement, in things Christians have said to you, and how much has been misunderstood; and how much of it has been what Christians genuinely believed, and you’ve understood it correctly, is of course difficult to say.

For what it’s worth, here is my understanding of what the New Testament teaches about Christ in his human nature. I will word this carefully, and I would certainly appreciate it if others would be so kind as to read what I say carefully and endeavour not to understand it as saying something it isn’t.


Did Jesus ever sin?

Firstly, the New Testament is quite clear that Jesus never once sinned.

In order for the Messiah to bear the sins of his people (those who put their trust in him), theologically it’s necessary for him to be as it were an ‘unblemished’ lamb — like the unblemished lambs which were to be offered in the tabernacle as prescribed in the book of Leviticus (see, e.g., Leviticus 1:10 (context: whole chapter)).

Not only is this a theological point that Christians believe about Jesus, but the New Testament actually states it explicitly:—

“For we do not have a high priest [i.e., Jesus] who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet was without sin.”
Hebrews 4:15

So then, it is clear that Jesus did not sin.


Didn’t he sin through his human experiences on earth?

Now, the New Testament is unashamed in attributing to Jesus Christ some very human experiences — hunger, thirst, amazement (Matthew 8:10), not knowing things (John 4:1 being an example).

Merely to undergo human experiences such as the above, is not sin.

Sin rather is turning away from God, disobedience toward God. Sin is not therefore entailed in any of the above experiences — hunger, thirst, amazement, not knowing — unless of course any of the above experiences arise out of some sinful course of action. For example, I might not know about God because I deliberately choose not to find out about him. But in and of themselves, the above experiences are not sinful.

This should in any case be clear from the foregoing points. If the New Testament says that Jesus underwent these human experiences, but the New Testament also says that Jesus did not sin, it follows that these experiences are not (of necessity) sinful.


Could Jesus have sinned?

I am firmly convinced that it was possible for Jesus to sin.

To be human is to have the aptitude to sin.

What then does it mean for the Son of God to take our human nature to himself, if that does not entail his taking on the possibility of sin?

Or to put it another way, how could Jesus be the Saviour of sinners if he did not so identify with us as to take on our aptitude to sin?

Hence I firmly believe that, though Jesus did not sin, it was possible for him to do so.

Once again, however, we are not reliant solely on philosophical reasoning to reach this conclusion. Scripture itself gives us a very clear clue.

In Matthew chapter 4 and parallels, Jesus is driven into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. The devil actually tempted Jesus — three specific temptations are given in Matthew chapter 4, and a very similar list of three temptations in Luke chapter 4.

Now what does it mean that Jesus was “tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4:1), if in fact it were not possible for Jesus to succumb to that temptation? Surely, rather, the very fact he was tempted implies that it was possible for Jesus to sin.

God be thanked, Jesus resisted the devil. In this he did the opposite to what Adam had done. When Adam was tempted by the devil, he succumbed (Genesis 3:6-7); Jesus, however, resisted.



Such is my understanding of the answer to your question, Mustafa Muhammed Sahin, from the New Testament’s perspective. I believe that all three of the points I have demonstrated above are not only true and reasonable, but also demonstrable from the New Testament text.

I hope this has been helpful to you.


Muslim Wrote:

Hi Graham Harter thank you very much for your well written response, i do i must say understand your stance, that Jesus as you say had the possibility to “Sin” by his human nature.

However i will God willing point out the many inconsistencies even still by the many examples lets start for example with this one,

Many Christians that i know when they respond to the Muslim questions regarding, Jesus human nature for example he did not depend upon his own Godly powers to give him strength after being tempted by the devil, Jesus the the (God Man) suffered, at times “Angels” would come to give him healing( Luke 22:43), they would strengthen him. When Muslims would say, why did not Jesus if indeed he have TWO nature’s one being “divine” did not demand on that very “divine” nature to give him strength, rather looked else where for help?

Christian Apologist would say” oh but Jesus was teaching a lesson of humbling himself” as a Man.

Christian Apologist also say” God came down to earth as a Man so he can experience what its like to feel the pains of men, so he can be close to us and experience what we experience, this is why he went through human suffering. So it seems that “Jesus as a man God wished to experience all these human problems, feeling pain, suffering, choosed not to show him self to be “self sufficient”, this was all to prove how humble he is, Yet he never once wished to prove his ” Humbleness” to commit a Sin and the Humbleness of a sincere repentance was never achieved. If he did those things, that too me proves true humility and Humbleness, merely being a man proves nothing, as even man by nature can be cruel and arrogant.

I find that pretty bazzar. Is it possible the Gospel writers felt pretty un-comfortable to mention he was sinful? If it was so un-exceptable for Jesus to sin during his ministry, are we to believe he didn’t sin even during his youth, before his ministry? Are we to believe that Jesus wished to experience even ” death at the cross” yet never wished to experience even the smallest of the smallest sin, like a “swear word”.

Not even during his youth by the way, the bible leaves out much of his youth. Im really suprised ” Jesus” as a human being simply did not commit a sin. I mean why was he so “Shy” after all? The Christians would have said even if he did “Sin” well he was just humbling him self before God, and that was part of his “human nature”? If they had such a get out card for everything else why not allow him to sin, and use the same excuse it was just his ” Human nature” kapish!

Im thinking the Bible writers felt un-comfortable about it because they were i believe trying to prove this man was just to holy and God to even commit Sins. We even look at saintly figures today, who are so devout we think in our minds this guy is just to perfect to commit a sin, i believe this is how the Bible writers wished to write the Bible about Jesus. After all the Bible is just a perspective of man writing on behalf of Jesus, i don’t think Jesus ever said he never sinned, its more about what people thought to believe about him.

For example, the gospel writers were not there while Jesus was being tempted by the Devil. There were no eye-witnesses, Jesus was alone in the wilderness, and the bible account just says After 40 days he resisted Sin. No one can know this for sure, maybe Jesus did sin those nights and days in secret since he followed satan to begin with, and the Bible writers just proposed he over came not to sin any longer, but instead wrote, he resisted sin. In other words we are just getting the assumption of these gospel writers who were not there watching and observing each move of Jesus. As you know sins can also be commited in “Secret”. So how can they be sure from just a public observation? Well of course Christians then say, well the Bible is “inspired” but being “inspired” is not “enough” Christians like to convince themselves that there were many eye-witnesses to the crucified Christ and resurrected Christ, so then i ask where are these “witnesses to every secret move of Jesus? Well the answer is none.

Its interesting how this whole focus God made on Jesus in the 40 days and nights to overcome sin to prove the human nature resisted “Sin” why was God so interested in testing the man nature of Jesus? Its not as though the man nature of Jesus wil be going to heaven or hell, Jesus instead would be sitting on the throne as God no matter if Jesus resisted sin (via) his human nature or not. So why would God put Jesus through all that temptation? When its no value to the human nature of Jesus? Since there will be no human nature of Jesus in heaven rejoicing he passed the temptation. He will be fully God. Jesus only became Human nature to be slain on earth, in the hereafter he will be in his glorified body that is no longer, with the bad human qualities.

If Yahway was testing say, somebody else like, Judas then it would make sense in the wilderness, but to test Jesus who is just going to go to heaven regardless if he resisted sin or not makes no sense. Now i know what you will do, you may say well Jesus was teaching us a lesson to the rest of humanity no matter how tough it is we must resist satans temptations just to explain away these problems. However i would ask the Christian why then did you compare Jesus to Adam? Why did you try and compare Jesus is Greater then Adam for Adam failed and Jesus succeeded?

See its been all about Jesus to prove that he is better then everyone else, its not really about these stories being a lesson to everyone else. Thus why his God even in morality and even in human nature to resist sin, even though you dont wish to admit it, otherwise why compare Jesus human nature with Adams Human nature? Then blame adam not being as Good as Jesus human nature?

Like i said it would have been more, reasonable to test a person like Judas because its that very same human nature of Judas trying to prove obedience to obtain God’s salvation, Testing the obedience of Jesus is meaningless since he will end up in Paradise regardless since of course you believe his God. The only way it will make a little sense if he wasn’t God and thus God tested his 40 night obedience. And that Jesus did not in fact have these ” Two Natures”.

I think the bible writers are not being honest about Jesus and sin, we even have the story of the women brought to him for “adultery” Jesus said those “without sin” cast the first stone. Now Christians Apologist will tell you, Jesus didn’t believe she comited the sin, it was just a false charge.

My response would be suppose, she really did “Sin” would Jesus have been the first to frow the stone, since unlike her accusers, Jesus could have stoned her since he was without sin? So how does Jesus removing the law of stoning get based on a narrative that she was not guilty? If she was guilty then Jesus would have ought to submit to the mosaic law at the time. Well the interesting thing is Bible scholars are now telling us this passage is based on a “textural verience” which may indicate, that the law removing the stonning was just a interpolation invented by those who indulged in such behaviour and invented ideas about Jesus, to remove such a hefty punishment, in order to accommodate there evil desires.

Furthermore, was the bible writers at the same time trying to remove a harsh law for convenience for themselves at the same time trying, to de-value the rest of the jews trying to prove they are “not without sin” and only Jesus is sinless, Possibly! but this invented scribal deciete was based on a verience? Proving further exegerration.

Another point, if the condition of stoning a person in the O.T mosaic law for Adultery can only be applied by “Sinless people” then why would such a law be given by Yahway when the law can never be applied? Since the only one whom is ” Sinless” is apparently Jesus? To carry out this punishment, are we really to believe God reveals a law to Moses that can never be able to be applied unless Jesus turned up decades later, only to remove the law? How nonsensical, it makes no sense that this law is given to moses in a period where the law can’t be applied “since there are no sinless people since Jesus is the only without Sin

I believe if we went back to the Adultery Women event and asked ” Jesus himself if he was without sin along with the Jews. He would have testified he too is NOT without sin. If not he would have stood up and proclaimed it, instead sat silent.

There are two many contradictions. Im sorry if i got a little side tracked. It seems all these TWO nature ideas were invented in order to explain about the many problems when questioning the Divinity with Jesus. They did well but they unfortunately created more problems then solving them elsewhere.

All though Christians may say” its possible for Jesus human nature to sin in order to show the human nature has flaws, they even then still can’t imagine him sinning by that VERY nature because that would make his human nature no less then the human nature of Adam.

Jesus then wouldn’t be Greater in human nature then Adam thus there wouldn’t be proof he was more divine, thus Christians even still give special important emphasize to Jesus human nature to prove it’s greater then everyone else, thus make it equal to some what the nature of God, and nothing less when it’s convenient to do so, and that is exactly the attitude we see in Biblical Theology all about convenience and how to accommodate and super-impose my theory about Jesus to cherry pick a interpretation in order to prove Jesus is divine, and how do i wash down human flaws of Jesus when things are becoming to questionable about Jesus role in divinity. Well lets just Blame his human nature at the same time when its convenient will show how his human nature is more ” Godly” when it comes to the issues of the power to “resist sin” which apparently no human on earth was able to do so except for “Jesus” why is that?

No wonder, most Christians appeal to that very standard he must be God since he resisted “SIN”

Yet that very nature they appeal to ” is according the doctrine of the Trinity not divine”. Interesting!

Christians will say, O.k guys what will do is because we have been exposed on this, will just pretend Jesus was able to sin, but refused the sin.

I would argue, well isn’t the power of refusal every single time, divine in of its self, since no other human being can do like wise? Is this not a special quality only unique to God? Isn’t it true that Christians say Jesus was ” Too Perfect to Sin” which is another attribute of God!

Begs the Question do Christians really believe Jesus human nature is really equal to the Godly nature. It seems it is when its convenient, when its not and Jesus shows human errors as a Man God, will put another spin on it to cover up for our assertion Jesus is God.

A final absurdity, is that we are told Jesus is the “unblemished lamb” he came to take away all the sins he was a pure man, he never sinned yet we are told,

Christians say Jesus is faultless or sinless. But Jesus was the most sinful he took everyones sin on the cross. And paid the ultimate penalty. Even Jay smith admits Jesus the man sinned https://youtu.be/jbcIwmnimQw

Even Apostle Paul even said Jesus became a curse for us, for anyone hanged on a tree is cursed.

Galatians 3:13 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

Why because Jesus took everyones sins and put it on himself thus why he paid the ultimate price (i.e) to be killed, so if this pure holy man became the most curseful person of all who had to pay the price wasn’t he then the ” Most Sinful” of all? If not why did Paul one of the outmost Authorities on the Bible declare such a Holy Man a curse? Surelly only a pure man, un-sinful man would be un-cursed. Yet Jesus was cursed, he took everyone’s sins and put it on himself the repercussions of those “SINS” were the result of his death, in other words Jesus paid for it, if Jesus didnt then others would be judged for there own sins, and pay the price, they didn’t Jesus paid for those sins himself.

I believe “Paul” should have called Jesus instead “blessed on the cross” but he couldn’t say that, for he represented “sin on the cross” a curse! Makes you wonder now, how did this man get killed sinless? For he took all sins onto himself??

In conclusion:

I hope this has uncovered for you the deeper questions that ought to be questioned, exposing the many levels of inconsistency when looking at the Two natures in order to prove divinity, it’s as though Christians just make things up as they go to trying to explain the many contradictions when trying to explain the Two natures, which by the way the bible “never” explicitly tells us “Jesus ” said he had TWO nature, its all clearly part of a conspiracy to invent untruthful lies about Jesus.


Please also visit